What does it take to get a little gun control

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.)

There’s a reason they are called negligent discharges. Essentially 99%+ of these shootings are a function of the trigger being pulled.

[Anonymous]

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

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

+1. This is correct, but overreaching is common among those who think they're right and you're wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

Nope. NRA-backed politicians will never vote for any of those things, no matter how sensible or popular. They’re the ones obstructing rational discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

No, there simply is no sensible anything with the dems, they are all seeing and all knowing it is their way or the highway. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. Even now they are doubling down on every social justice issue. Yes they will retain local pockets of power and control a few states but at a national level they won’t win an election for a generation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

No, there simply is no sensible anything with the dems, they are all seeing and all knowing it is their way or the highway. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. Even now they are doubling down on every social justice issue. Yes they will retain local pockets of power and control a few states but at a national level they won’t win an election for a generation.

Are you saying that that the GOP and pro-2A are sensible? That there is no gun restriction out there that's sensible? Virtually every school children mass murder is followed up by a further loosening of restrictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

No, there simply is no sensible anything with the dems, they are all seeing and all knowing it is their way or the highway. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. Even now they are doubling down on every social justice issue. Yes they will retain local pockets of power and control a few states but at a national level they won’t win an election for a generation.

What you’ve said also applies to Republicans. The Republican party has gotten more and more extreme over the past 30 years. They refuse to compromise on anything. They are responsible for stoking the fear and paranoia that leads Americans to stockpile weapons to such a ridiculous extent. You own this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

Actually, we did have those things. Under the 1994 Clinton Administration Assault Weapons Ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned under the 1994 law that expired in 2004 during the Republican George W. Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, there was a drop in mass shooting fatalities during that time period. After Bush let the assault weapons ban expire, not only did the number of mass shootings increase, the scale of fatalities also increased. It’s not rocket science. We could have those things again, but Republicans have dug in their heels over the 2A and portrayed everyone in favor of even the slightest restriction as gun grabbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

+1. This is correct, but overreaching is common among those who think they're right and you're wrong.

High-capacity magazine bans and other reasonable reforms have been proposed, but they’ve consistently been blocked in Congress. If Second Amendment advocates are genuinely concerned about overreach and poorly informed legislation, then they should be leading the charge on pragmatic solutions. That means proposing their own bills to address mental health, regulate magazine capacity, restrict bump stocks, and prevent scenarios like Stephen Paddock firing over 1,100 rounds into a concert crowd in mere minutes.

Instead, what constantly face is obstruction, deflection, and a refusal to engage with even modest reforms. If the goal is to avoid extreme measures, then the path forward is clear: support the reasonable ones before the public demands something more sweeping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

Actually, we did have those things. Under the 1994 Clinton Administration Assault Weapons Ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned under the 1994 law that expired in 2004 during the Republican George W. Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, there was a drop in mass shooting fatalities during that time period. After Bush let the assault weapons ban expire, not only did the number of mass shootings increase, the scale of fatalities also increased. It’s not rocket science. We could have those things again, but Republicans have dug in their heels over the 2A and portrayed everyone in favor of even the slightest restriction as gun grabbers.

Most mass shootings involve handguns.

Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban.

The creation of 24hr news ushered in twisted copycats looking to become infamous.

Many more people were murdered with rifles during the assault weapon ban that are murdered now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:High-capacity magazine bans and other reasonable reforms have been proposed, but they’ve consistently been blocked in Congress. If Second Amendment advocates are genuinely concerned about overreach and poorly informed legislation, then they should be leading the charge on pragmatic solutions. That means proposing their own bills to address mental health, regulate magazine capacity, restrict bump stocks, and prevent scenarios like Stephen Paddock firing over 1,100 rounds into a concert crowd in mere minutes.

Instead, what constantly face is obstruction, deflection, and a refusal to engage with even modest reforms. If the goal is to avoid extreme measures, then the path forward is clear: support the reasonable ones before the public demands something more sweeping.

Without confiscation bans are window dressing. Elected Democrats realize the mere mention of that would be the end of their careers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:High-capacity magazine bans and other reasonable reforms have been proposed, but they’ve consistently been blocked in Congress. If Second Amendment advocates are genuinely concerned about overreach and poorly informed legislation, then they should be leading the charge on pragmatic solutions. That means proposing their own bills to address mental health, regulate magazine capacity, restrict bump stocks, and prevent scenarios like Stephen Paddock firing over 1,100 rounds into a concert crowd in mere minutes.

Instead, what constantly face is obstruction, deflection, and a refusal to engage with even modest reforms. If the goal is to avoid extreme measures, then the path forward is clear: support the reasonable ones before the public demands something more sweeping.

Without confiscation bans are window dressing. Elected Democrats realize the mere mention of that would be the end of their careers.

“We have a problem. Your proposed idea will only partly help, so obviously the only thing we can do is not even entertain your idea and encourage the problem to continue”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

Actually, we did have those things. Under the 1994 Clinton Administration Assault Weapons Ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned under the 1994 law that expired in 2004 during the Republican George W. Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, there was a drop in mass shooting fatalities during that time period. After Bush let the assault weapons ban expire, not only did the number of mass shootings increase, the scale of fatalities also increased. It’s not rocket science. We could have those things again, but Republicans have dug in their heels over the 2A and portrayed everyone in favor of even the slightest restriction as gun grabbers.

Most mass shootings involve handguns.

Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban.

The creation of 24hr news ushered in twisted copycats looking to become infamous.

Many more people were murdered with rifles during the assault weapon ban that are murdered now.

Handgun attacks are less deadly. The data shows a steep and immediate rise in shooting deaths after the ban expired, and long after the creation of the 24 hour news cycle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:High-capacity magazine bans and other reasonable reforms have been proposed, but they’ve consistently been blocked in Congress. If Second Amendment advocates are genuinely concerned about overreach and poorly informed legislation, then they should be leading the charge on pragmatic solutions. That means proposing their own bills to address mental health, regulate magazine capacity, restrict bump stocks, and prevent scenarios like Stephen Paddock firing over 1,100 rounds into a concert crowd in mere minutes.

Instead, what constantly face is obstruction, deflection, and a refusal to engage with even modest reforms. If the goal is to avoid extreme measures, then the path forward is clear: support the reasonable ones before the public demands something more sweeping.

Without confiscation bans are window dressing. Elected Democrats realize the mere mention of that would be the end of their careers.

“We have a problem. Your proposed idea will only partly help, so obviously the only thing we can do is not even entertain your idea and encourage the problem to continue”

Actually, the only thing they can do (and do) is make things worse. Every school mass shooting results in more loosening up of the Second Amendment. GOP voters are complicit in these children's deaths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Jesus this is ridiculous.

I am a pro 2nd amendment guy and there is absolutely a way to get more gun control but you'll never pull it off.

Honestly. After Newtown, you could absolutely have had a ban on magazines over 10 rounds. If you playeds your cards right, you could have had licensing and registration requirements. But you went all in on an assault weapons ban and it wasted whatever opportunity you may have had for him control. You lost all momentum as Ted Cruz made Diane Feinstein look stupid with her definition of an assault weapon.

If you focus on things like limiting magazine capacity and licensing and registration, you can get these things. I feel comfortable telling you this because the gun control folks are extremely uninformed and stupid and will always try to grab people guns and the blowback from that will be not getting your gun control AND losing elections in almost all the swing states.

Actually, we did have those things. Under the 1994 Clinton Administration Assault Weapons Ban, the maximum capacity of a magazine was set at 10 rounds. AR-15s were one of 18 semiautomatic weapons banned under the 1994 law that expired in 2004 during the Republican George W. Bush administration.

Not surprisingly, there was a drop in mass shooting fatalities during that time period. After Bush let the assault weapons ban expire, not only did the number of mass shootings increase, the scale of fatalities also increased. It’s not rocket science. We could have those things again, but Republicans have dug in their heels over the 2A and portrayed everyone in favor of even the slightest restriction as gun grabbers.

Most mass shootings involve handguns.

Columbine happened during the assault weapon ban.

The creation of 24hr news ushered in twisted copycats looking to become infamous.

Many more people were murdered with rifles during the assault weapon ban that are murdered now.

You've consistently been full of half truths, misleading arguments and outright false statements.

Fact check time:

- The 1994–2004 Assault Weapons Ban did in fact work. Mass shooting deaths were 70% lower during the ban. After it expired, fatalities and frequency skyrocketed. That’s not a coincidence, it’s cause and effect.

- AR-15s and similar rifles are the weapon of choice in the deadliest mass shootings. They’re used disproportionately in high-casualty events because they’re fast, accurate, and built for combat. When long guns are involved, they’re almost always military-style semiautomatics.

- Magazine limits matter. States that ban large-capacity magazines see 49% fewer fatal mass shootings and 70% fewer deaths per capita. Slowing a shooter down saves lives.

- Licensing and registration work. They reduce gun trafficking, improve background check compliance, and lower homicide rates. These are proven, scalable reforms, not theoretical wishcasting.

- Columbine? Happened during the ban, yes, but the shooters used grandfathered weapons and magazines. That’s a loophole problem, not a policy failure.

- "Most mass shootings involve handguns" is a dodge. True in raw numbers, but irrelevant when AR-15s are used to mow down dozens in minutes. Lethality matters.

- "More rifle murders during the ban" - That's flatly false. Rifles account for a small fraction of gun homicides overall, but account for a large share of mass shooting deaths due to their efficiency.

Bottom line: Assault weapon bans, magazine limits, and licensing aren’t magic wands, but they absolutely do reduce body counts. The data’s clear. Your deflections and misleading, deflecting narrative is completely broken.