Reply to What does it take to get a little gun control

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "What does it take to get a little gun control "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]To get a little gun control, Democrats have to abandon the idea that they want lots of gun control.

But their end goal is lots of gun bans.[/quote]

One of the most insidious tactics employed by the left today is when they use the violence carried out by one of their favored demographics as a pretext to disarm White law abiding males who tend to be the most vigorous 2nd amendment defenders.

Then those white law abiding males turn into more bitter clingers who hold their guns and ammo more and more tightly, but never actually use them and thus loose power.

[/quote]

This thread is a masterclass in deflection. While children are being gunned down in churches and schools, the author wants you to believe the real crisis is that “White law-abiding males” feel bitter. Let’s be clear: the most urgent and undeniable threat to American lives today is gun violence, not imaginary disarmament campaigns.

Fact Check: Mass Shootings Are a National Emergency

In 2025 alone, there have been 268 mass shootings, leaving 262 dead and over 1,100 wounded.

Here we are in this thread, because yet another gunman opened fire on children, this time during a church mass in Minneapolis, killing two and injuring 17.

Guns are now the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States.

This isn’t a partisan talking point, it’s a public health catastrophe.

The “Favored Demographics” Lie: The claim that Democrats exploit violence “by favored demographics” [b]to target White males is not only baseless, it’s racially inflammatory. Gun violence affects all communities[/b], and mass shootings have occurred in rural towns, urban centers, churches, synagogues, grocery stores, and schools. The victims span every race, religion, and income level.

The PP laments that White gun owners “never actually use” their weapons and “lose power.” That’s not just paranoid, it’s dangerous. The Second Amendment protects ownership, not vigilantism. Power in a democracy comes from civic engagement, not stockpiling ammo.

Most mainstream gun control proposals, of universal background checks, red flag laws, limits on high-capacity magazines are strongly supported by a majority of Americans, including gun owners. These are targeted, evidence-based policies aimed at reducing preventable deaths, not disarming law-abiding citizens.

The disingenuous posters above try to reframe a national tragedy as a culture war grievance. It ignores the bodies piling up in classrooms and churches. It weaponizes racial resentment while deflecting from the real issue: America’s gun violence epidemic. If your response to mass shootings is fear of losing symbolic power, not fear for the lives of children, then you’ve lost the plot and along with it, your moral compass.  Sorry, PP, you've lost the debate.  It only continues to exist in the rarefied atmosphere of well funded gun lobbyists and corrupt GOP politicians, not among the mainstream of America.[/quote]

Gun violence disporportionaly effects communities of colour, this is an enormous social justice issue and [b]the data is not up for debate[/b]. [u]Nearly every major gun safety organization provides that talking point.[/u]

Red flag laws absolutely disarm law abiding citizens as they have not commited any crime. Same for limits on high capacity magazines by defintion because by removing them you have disarmed them.

The comments with respect to bitter white clingers are precisely because they don't execute the power that they could wield but don't. As such they're quite literally not a threat to the government and no one takes them seriously.[/quote]

You're either being deliberately obtuse or the core of this debate has flown right past you.

Red flag laws don’t “disarm law-abiding citizens”, instead they temporarily restrict access when there’s credible evidence of imminent harm. That’s not punishment, it’s prevention. And limiting high-capacity magazines doesn’t disarm anyone, it reduces the number of people killed when someone decides to murder.

Your comment about “bitter white clingers” lacking power because they don’t use their guns isn’t analysis is a thinly veiled lament for political violence. The Second Amendment protects ownership, not fantasies of insurrection. Those fantasies are not grounded in fact or history.  Within six months of ratifying 2A, the Founders passed the Militia Act, defining militias as state-regulated forces, not self-defined freelance rebels. And when the Whiskey Rebellion tested your “fight tyranny” theory, Washington himself led troops to crush it.

Gun violence is killing children. If your concern is symbolic power instead of public safety, you’re not defending liberty, you’re abandoning it.  You not defending anything or anyone, frankly you are failing America and innocent children are paying the price.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics