Anonymous wrote:Or Muslim school shooters

We already have those. And they don't prefer guns anyway. They use pressure cookers filled with explosives ... old-fashioned pipe bombs.

Or Muslim school shooters

It would take black or Mexican school shooters for republicans to flip

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sacrifice 40,000 people to the automobile a year, and driving isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. So probably some multiple of that.

Gun violence is leading cause of death for minors, not car accidents.

Look at the “minors” age range.

We already have plenty of gun laws. We don't use them in the areas where those minors are killing each other. We don't need new rules, we just need to enforce the ones we have against the bad guys.

You're still going to have some guns to to stroke and fondle. Certain ones won't be permitted. Relax. The Earth will continue to spin.

What features do you not want permitted?

DP

I’m sure her suggestions about what features should be banned is perfectly common sense and reasonable. The ability to fire a bullet, for example. I’m sure they’d like to do away with that feature.

You know - reasonable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ban assault weapons. No one and I mean no one needs an AR15 outside the military. That would be a start and we were able to do it before.

the military doesn't use ar15s.

They use the M16 and M4, both assault rifles.

Again for those in the back, no one outside of the battlefield needs an assault rifle.

It's a good thing our rights don't depend on your determination of what people need.

I am a straight white Christian republican male. Everything is based on what I think you need.

Another republican who would repeal the 19th based on what you think we need? Just curious how many of you are lurking here.

DP should an indigents vote count as much as a Yale economist? How about a MAGA voter vs an upscale liberal?

Universal suffrage has downsides too.

Well, according to the Electoral College, a voter in Wyoming carries about 3.6 times the weight of a voter in California.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sacrifice 40,000 people to the automobile a year, and driving isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. So probably some multiple of that.

That’s a false equivalency though. Driving has multiple prosocial purposes. Guns have one purpose: killing.

Mass shootings aren’t an accidental byproduct of some other activity, they are the activity.

I wouldn't call driving a prosocial activity though. Not on an individual or social level. The car has led to the destruction of the American landscape, the isolation of people from their communities and a crushing financial burden. The car kills people, cities and nations. Guns only kill people.

Let’s not conflate metaphorical killing of cities with literal killing of people. That’s irrelevant.

Guns are designed to murder, and marketed as such. Cars are not advertised based on how many pedestrians they can mow down.

Guns are no more "designed to murder" than cars are designed to kill other drivers and pedestrians. Both can be used for legal and valid purposes, or abused. The variable is the operator, and that's where the focus should be, not on the instrument they use improperly.

Of course guns are designed to murder. I guess you could use one as a paperweight, but that isn’t its primary function.

Does a hunter murder or kill a deer?

Doesn’t make any difference from the deer’s point of view

It does from a human point of view.

Killing and murder isn't the same thing.

Who cares? The end result is the same.

Anonymous wrote:When it didn't happen after Sandy Hook, I gave up the thought. Our country is damaged.

+1. News
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
Published:
May 27, 2014 https://theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1819576527/
ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sacrifice 40,000 people to the automobile a year, and driving isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. So probably some multiple of that.

That’s a false equivalency though. Driving has multiple prosocial purposes. Guns have one purpose: killing.

Mass shootings aren’t an accidental byproduct of some other activity, they are the activity.

I wouldn't call driving a prosocial activity though. Not on an individual or social level. The car has led to the destruction of the American landscape, the isolation of people from their communities and a crushing financial burden. The car kills people, cities and nations. Guns only kill people.

Let’s not conflate metaphorical killing of cities with literal killing of people. That’s irrelevant.

Guns are designed to murder, and marketed as such. Cars are not advertised based on how many pedestrians they can mow down.

Guns are no more "designed to murder" than cars are designed to kill other drivers and pedestrians. Both can be used for legal and valid purposes, or abused. The variable is the operator, and that's where the focus should be, not on the instrument they use improperly.

Of course guns are designed to murder. I guess you could use one as a paperweight, but that isn’t its primary function.

Does a hunter murder or kill a deer?

Doesn’t make any difference from the deer’s point of view

It does from a human point of view.

Killing and murder isn't the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sacrifice 40,000 people to the automobile a year, and driving isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. So probably some multiple of that.

That’s a false equivalency though. Driving has multiple prosocial purposes. Guns have one purpose: killing.

Mass shootings aren’t an accidental byproduct of some other activity, they are the activity.

I wouldn't call driving a prosocial activity though. Not on an individual or social level. The car has led to the destruction of the American landscape, the isolation of people from their communities and a crushing financial burden. The car kills people, cities and nations. Guns only kill people.

Let’s not conflate metaphorical killing of cities with literal killing of people. That’s irrelevant.

Guns are designed to murder, and marketed as such. Cars are not advertised based on how many pedestrians they can mow down.

Guns are no more "designed to murder" than cars are designed to kill other drivers and pedestrians. Both can be used for legal and valid purposes, or abused. The variable is the operator, and that's where the focus should be, not on the instrument they use improperly.

Of course guns are designed to murder. I guess you could use one as a paperweight, but that isn’t its primary function.

Does a hunter murder or kill a deer?

Doesn’t make any difference from the deer’s point of view

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ban assault weapons. No one and I mean no one needs an AR15 outside the military. That would be a start and we were able to do it before.

the military doesn't use ar15s.

They use the M16 and M4, both assault rifles.

Again for those in the back, no one outside of the battlefield needs an assault rifle.

It's a good thing our rights don't depend on your determination of what people need.

I am a straight white Christian republican male. Everything is based on what I think you need.

Does the word “inalienable” mean anything to you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sacrifice 40,000 people to the automobile a year, and driving isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. So probably some multiple of that.

Gun violence is leading cause of death for minors, not car accidents.

Look at the “minors” age range.

We already have plenty of gun laws. We don't use them in the areas where those minors are killing each other. We don't need new rules, we just need to enforce the ones we have against the bad guys.

You're still going to have some guns to to stroke and fondle. Certain ones won't be permitted. Relax. The Earth will continue to spin.

What features do you not want permitted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ban assault weapons. No one and I mean no one needs an AR15 outside the military. That would be a start and we were able to do it before.

the military doesn't use ar15s.

They use the M16 and M4, both assault rifles.

Again for those in the back, no one outside of the battlefield needs an assault rifle.

It's a good thing our rights don't depend on your determination of what people need.

I am a straight white Christian republican male. Everything is based on what I think you need.

Another republican who would repeal the 19th based on what you think we need? Just curious how many of you are lurking here.

DP should an indigents vote count as much as a Yale economist? How about a MAGA voter vs an upscale liberal?

Universal suffrage has downsides too.

It matters because if you are one of "those" Handmaid's tale types (9ne revealed themselves on another thread), your vote counts equally but I view you as extreme fringe. Also wondering how much that view is infiltrating the right wing, hoping it is not becoming common.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ban assault weapons. No one and I mean no one needs an AR15 outside the military. That would be a start and we were able to do it before.

the military doesn't use ar15s.

They use the M16 and M4, both assault rifles.

Again for those in the back, no one outside of the battlefield needs an assault rifle.

It's a good thing our rights don't depend on your determination of what people need.

I am a straight white Christian republican male. Everything is based on what I think you need.

Another republican who would repeal the 19th based on what you think we need? Just curious how many of you are lurking here.

DP should an indigents vote count as much as a Yale economist? How about a MAGA voter vs an upscale liberal?

Universal suffrage has downsides too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sacrifice 40,000 people to the automobile a year, and driving isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. So probably some multiple of that.

That’s a false equivalency though. Driving has multiple prosocial purposes. Guns have one purpose: killing.

Mass shootings aren’t an accidental byproduct of some other activity, they are the activity.

I wouldn't call driving a prosocial activity though. Not on an individual or social level. The car has led to the destruction of the American landscape, the isolation of people from their communities and a crushing financial burden. The car kills people, cities and nations. Guns only kill people.

Let’s not conflate metaphorical killing of cities with literal killing of people. That’s irrelevant.

Guns are designed to murder, and marketed as such. Cars are not advertised based on how many pedestrians they can mow down.

Guns are no more "designed to murder" than cars are designed to kill other drivers and pedestrians. Both can be used for legal and valid purposes, or abused. The variable is the operator, and that's where the focus should be, not on the instrument they use improperly.

Of course guns are designed to murder. I guess you could use one as a paperweight, but that isn’t its primary function.

Does a hunter murder or kill a deer?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ban assault weapons. No one and I mean no one needs an AR15 outside the military. That would be a start and we were able to do it before.

the military doesn't use ar15s.

They use the M16 and M4, both assault rifles.

Again for those in the back, no one outside of the battlefield needs an assault rifle.

It's a good thing our rights don't depend on your determination of what people need.

I am a straight white Christian republican male. Everything is based on what I think you need.

Another republican who would repeal the 19th based on what you think we need? Just curious how many of you are lurking here.