Anonymous
08/29/2025 06:46
Subject: What does it take to get a little gun control
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
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.
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” to target White males is not only baseless, it’s racially inflammatory. Gun violence affects all communities, 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.
Gun violence disporportionaly effects communities of colour, this is an enormous social justice issue and the data is not up for debate. Nearly every major gun safety organization provides that talking point.
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.
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.
What law has someone broken who is someject to a red flag law? No law has been broken[u] otherwise they would be ineligble to have a gun.
Disarm (from merriam webster):
1 a : to deprive of means, reason, or disposition to be hostile
2 b : to deprive of a means of attack or defense
2 c: to make harmless
By your own logic reudcing magazine size does 2b/2c. You have deprived them of the means.
White gun owners rising up is a fantasy that they cling to, not one that they ever do, its laughable. Even when they stormed the halls of congress they weren't armed too the teeth. Hence they are powerless.
Anonymous
08/29/2025 06:07
Subject: What does it take to get a little gun control
Anonymous wrote:Dems are constantly whining about guns, but in Blue cities the DAs & judges are so lax that criminals are back on the street after doing little or no time in prison. Maybe if they actually enforced the laws they already have there wouldn’t be a need for more laws.
Trump pardoned 1600 violent J6 felons and put them back on the streets. Spare us the “law and order” lecture.
Anonymous
08/29/2025 04:19
Subject: What does it take to get a little gun control
Dems are constantly whining about guns, but in Blue cities the DAs & judges are so lax that criminals are back on the street after doing little or no time in prison. Maybe if they actually enforced the laws they already have there wouldn’t be a need for more laws.
Anonymous
08/29/2025 03:52
Subject: What does it take to get a little gun control
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The R position is so entrenched that it’s basically impossible. I don’t even think these get it done, but maybe:
Many private school shootings at the most elite schools in the country including a bunch of very powerful people’s kids. Like the top of the top elite (senators, billionaires). Many incidents, many victims, in a short time frame.
Legal citizen Muslims shooting dozens of schools with guns they bought legally. Hundreds of dead, mostly upper class schools. This might scare the gun nuts to make some changes to laws.
The R position is bullshit.
The R position on trans people is "just one trans person in womens sports or in womens bathrooms is too many"
Well what about MASS SHOOTINGS which destroy far more lives far more traumatically than one trans person in womens sports or womens bathrooms?
Sorry, Republicans. Your rhetoric is no longer valid. If one trans person is too many then one mass shooting is too many. You are WAY over your limit on mass shootings. It's time for this to END. Your BS can no longer be tolerated by America.
Say it loud, and say it with me:
ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.
One brown person commits a rape therefore millions of brown people who didn't rape anyone need to be deported
ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.
You Republicans should understand this logic, YOU INVENTED IT.
YOU FIX IT. ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS. END OF STORY.
Never mind that the overwhelming majority of rapes in the US are committed by white males. But they aren't the problem, apparently.
ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.
Fix the gun laws, fix the mental health system. That is the only answer. Until the right wing admits and acknowledges this and agrees to help, they are lying bad faith actors and are completely full of shit.
Meanwhile the National Institute of Mental Health, like all parts of NIH, has been crippled by DOGE cuts and completely unnecessary hurdles in their grant process. Mental health research has been set back years. You'd think an administration that claims mental health (rather than guns) is the root cause of gun violence might be concerned, but here we are.
Anonymous
08/29/2025 01:18
Subject: What does it take to get a little gun control
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The R position is so entrenched that it’s basically impossible. I don’t even think these get it done, but maybe:
Many private school shootings at the most elite schools in the country including a bunch of very powerful people’s kids. Like the top of the top elite (senators, billionaires). Many incidents, many victims, in a short time frame.
Legal citizen Muslims shooting dozens of schools with guns they bought legally. Hundreds of dead, mostly upper class schools. This might scare the gun nuts to make some changes to laws.
The R position is bullshit.
The R position on trans people is "just one trans person in womens sports or in womens bathrooms is too many"
Well what about MASS SHOOTINGS which destroy far more lives far more traumatically than one trans person in womens sports or womens bathrooms?
Sorry, Republicans. Your rhetoric is no longer valid. If one trans person is too many then one mass shooting is too many. You are WAY over your limit on mass shootings. It's time for this to END. Your BS can no longer be tolerated by America.
Say it loud, and say it with me:
ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.
One brown person commits a rape therefore millions of brown people who didn't rape anyone need to be deported
ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.
You Republicans should understand this logic, YOU INVENTED IT.
YOU FIX IT. ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS. END OF STORY.
Never mind that the overwhelming majority of rapes in the US are committed by white males. But they aren't the problem, apparently.
ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.
Fix the gun laws, fix the mental health system. That is the only answer. Until the right wing admits and acknowledges this and agrees to help, they are lying bad faith actors and are completely full of shit.
Anonymous
08/29/2025 01:12
Subject: What does it take to get a little gun control
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The R position is so entrenched that it’s basically impossible. I don’t even think these get it done, but maybe:
Many private school shootings at the most elite schools in the country including a bunch of very powerful people’s kids. Like the top of the top elite (senators, billionaires). Many incidents, many victims, in a short time frame.
Legal citizen Muslims shooting dozens of schools with guns they bought legally. Hundreds of dead, mostly upper class schools. This might scare the gun nuts to make some changes to laws.
The R position is bullshit.
The R position on trans people is "just one trans person in womens sports or in womens bathrooms is too many"
Well what about MASS SHOOTINGS which destroy far more lives far more traumatically than one trans person in womens sports or womens bathrooms?
Sorry, Republicans. Your rhetoric is no longer valid. If one trans person is too many then one mass shooting is too many. You are WAY over your limit on mass shootings. It's time for this to END. Your BS can no longer be tolerated by America.
Say it loud, and say it with me:
ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.
One brown person commits a rape therefore millions of brown people who didn't rape anyone need to be deported
ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.
You Republicans should understand this logic, YOU INVENTED IT.
YOU FIX IT. ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS. END OF STORY.
Never mind that the overwhelming majority of rapes in the US are committed by white males. But they aren't the problem, apparently.
Anonymous
08/29/2025 01:01
Subject: What does it take to get a little gun control
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The R position is so entrenched that it’s basically impossible. I don’t even think these get it done, but maybe:
Many private school shootings at the most elite schools in the country including a bunch of very powerful people’s kids. Like the top of the top elite (senators, billionaires). Many incidents, many victims, in a short time frame.
Legal citizen Muslims shooting dozens of schools with guns they bought legally. Hundreds of dead, mostly upper class schools. This might scare the gun nuts to make some changes to laws.
The R position is bullshit.
The R position on trans people is "just one trans person in womens sports or in womens bathrooms is too many"
Well what about MASS SHOOTINGS which destroy far more lives far more traumatically than one trans person in womens sports or womens bathrooms?
Sorry, Republicans. Your rhetoric is no longer valid. If one trans person is too many then one mass shooting is too many. You are WAY over your limit on mass shootings. It's time for this to END. Your BS can no longer be tolerated by America.
Say it loud, and say it with me:
ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.
One brown person commits a rape therefore millions of brown people who didn't rape anyone need to be deported
ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.
You Republicans should understand this logic, YOU INVENTED IT.
YOU FIX IT. ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS. END OF STORY.
Anonymous
08/29/2025 00:58
Subject: What does it take to get a little gun control
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The R position is so entrenched that it’s basically impossible. I don’t even think these get it done, but maybe:
Many private school shootings at the most elite schools in the country including a bunch of very powerful people’s kids. Like the top of the top elite (senators, billionaires). Many incidents, many victims, in a short time frame.
Legal citizen Muslims shooting dozens of schools with guns they bought legally. Hundreds of dead, mostly upper class schools. This might scare the gun nuts to make some changes to laws.
The R position is bullshit.
The R position on trans people is "just one trans person in womens sports or in womens bathrooms is too many"
Well what about MASS SHOOTINGS which destroy far more lives far more traumatically than one trans person in womens sports or womens bathrooms?
Sorry, Republicans. Your rhetoric is no longer valid. If one trans person is too many then one mass shooting is too many. You are WAY over your limit on mass shootings. It's time for this to END. Your BS can no longer be tolerated by America.
Say it loud, and say it with me:
ONE MASS SHOOTING IS TOO MANY MASS SHOOTINGS.
Anonymous
08/29/2025 00:54
Subject: What does it take to get a little gun control
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
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.
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” to target White males is not only baseless, it’s racially inflammatory. Gun violence affects all communities, 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.
Gun violence disporportionaly effects communities of colour, this is an enormous social justice issue and the data is not up for debate. Nearly every major gun safety organization provides that talking point.
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.
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.
Anonymous
08/28/2025 23:49
Subject: What does it take to get a little gun control
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.
You’re splitting hairs. Killing and murder is indeed the same thing. If someone dies of a heart attack, we do not say they were killed.
The word Killed implies murder.
It seems what you’re trying to say is sometimes murder is justifiable perhaps for self defense or hunting and that’s why we have the gun laws that we have but there’s a difference between murdering someone with an Ak47 and Swiss cheesing someone with an AR15 assault rifle. Assault rifles are especially brutal-weapons of war. In fact, they’re perhaps too cruel even for that. In an ideal world, assault rifles wouldn’t exist at all. It’s also insane when these random nutjobs are armed to the teeth more than the police. How are officers supposed to stop a one man army?
Anonymous
08/28/2025 23:49
Subject: What does it take to get a little gun control
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: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.
Not at all true.
Murder involves evil intent. Killing doesn't always involve evil intent.
For example you can kill the deer to put meat on the table allowing a family to survive a harsh winter.
You can have an accidental discharge that kills someone unintentionally.
You can kill justifyably:
You can be a member of the military who kills someone to defend your nation.
You can kill someone in self defense and save your kid/wife.
Who cares? The end result is the same.
No, the end result is not at all the same.
If a hunter kills a deer and has a deer permit, they have a trophy, or a story, or a freezer full of food and they don't go to jail.
If a human murders another human because they had evil intent, they may go to jail.
If a human kills another human while following the rules of war, they don't go to jail.
Don't be delibrately obtuse.
The end result is death. Dead deer. Dead human. Both are dead. Caused by the gun, which is designed to make them dead. You’re the one being deliberately obtuse by claiming that they are not in fact both dead.
You won't engage on the point in question which means you are either intellectually dishonest or a fool. The end result is NOT death for all parties involved.
I ask again, are murder and killing the same thing?
Yes or no answer please.
The end result FOR THE LIVING ENTITY THAT IS SHOT is death.
I don’t have enough crayons to explain that to you. You keep trying to move the goalposts (speaking of intellectual dishonesty) and make it about the person using the gun, and not the gun itself. I could use a fork to short out an electrical outlet, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was designed for eating.
Anonymous
08/28/2025 23:43
Subject: What does it take to get a little gun control
Anonymous wrote: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.
I don’t ever recall a Muslim kid blowing up an entire school with a bomb. I’d assume they’d be too worried about the consequences toward their family if they did such.
Maybe that’s the answer here: consequences for family.
It amazes me that these parents somehow don’t know their kids have guns and are planning to shoot down the school.
Anonymous
08/28/2025 23:43
Subject: What does it take to get a little gun control
People need to vote on this issue.
Not paying lower taxes.
Not paying lower taxes.
Anonymous
08/28/2025 23:42
Subject: What does it take to get a little gun control
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: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.
Not at all true.
Murder involves evil intent. Killing doesn't always involve evil intent.
For example you can kill the deer to put meat on the table allowing a family to survive a harsh winter.
You can have an accidental discharge that kills someone unintentionally.
You can kill justifyably:
You can be a member of the military who kills someone to defend your nation.
You can kill someone in self defense and save your kid/wife.
Who cares? The end result is the same.
No, the end result is not at all the same.
If a hunter kills a deer and has a deer permit, they have a trophy, or a story, or a freezer full of food and they don't go to jail.
If a human murders another human because they had evil intent, they may go to jail.
If a human kills another human while following the rules of war, they don't go to jail.
Don't be delibrately obtuse.
The end result is death. Dead deer. Dead human. Both are dead. Caused by the gun, which is designed to make them dead. You’re the one being deliberately obtuse by claiming that they are not in fact both dead.
You won't engage on the point in question which means you are either intellectually dishonest or a fool. The end result is NOT death for all parties involved.
I ask again, are murder and killing the same thing?
Yes or no answer please.
Anonymous
08/28/2025 23:40
Subject: What does it take to get a little gun control
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
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.
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” to target White males is not only baseless, it’s racially inflammatory. Gun violence affects all communities, 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.
Gun violence disporportionaly effects communities of colour, this is an enormous social justice issue and the data is not up for debate. Nearly every major gun safety organization provides that talking point.
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.