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:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.

That pesky constitution protected my reproductive rights until it didn't. It changes. Oh well

Lot harder to change 2nd amendment than one not explicitly mentioned

There is a lot that can be done without changing the 2nd Amendment. The country has for example already decided that felons cannot own guns. Should do the same for anyone who has a documented record of diagnosed mental illness, workplace violence, domestic violence, anger management issues, or any crime whatsoever, that involved a gun in any way whatsoever. Additionally we should consider treating guns for example the way we do cars, requiring mandatory titleing and tagging, requiring any transfer of ownership to be documented, requiring a searchable ownership and records history, requiring regular inspections, requiring written and practical exam, minimum mandatory health requirements and licensing, subject to periodic renewal, and that DOES NOT constitute "infringement."

All of this is an infringement, BY ITS VERY DEFINITION. I understand the ground game; change definitions of words to be cute, but no.

Maybe we should just require a really high tax on guns as well as increase the personal liability insurance requirements. If you can't limit the right to own, perhaps you can make it prohibitively expensive.

So predictable. Like I said, you believe the ends justify the means.

Maybe a $50,000 tax on each the patient and doctor in the event of an abortion is required.

Carry on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.

That pesky constitution protected my reproductive rights until it didn't. It changes. Oh well

Lot harder to change 2nd amendment than one not explicitly mentioned

There is a lot that can be done without changing the 2nd Amendment. The country has for example already decided that felons cannot own guns. Should do the same for anyone who has a documented record of diagnosed mental illness, workplace violence, domestic violence, anger management issues, or any crime whatsoever, that involved a gun in any way whatsoever. Additionally we should consider treating guns for example the way we do cars, requiring mandatory titleing and tagging, requiring any transfer of ownership to be documented, requiring a searchable ownership and records history, requiring regular inspections, requiring written and practical exam, minimum mandatory health requirements and licensing, subject to periodic renewal, and that DOES NOT constitute "infringement."

All of this is an infringement, BY ITS VERY DEFINITION. I understand the ground game; change definitions of words to be cute, but no.

Maybe we should just require a really high tax on guns as well as increase the personal liability insurance requirements. If you can't limit the right to own, perhaps you can make it prohibitively expensive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.

That pesky constitution protected my reproductive rights until it didn't. It changes. Oh well

Lot harder to change 2nd amendment than one not explicitly mentioned

There is a lot that can be done without changing the 2nd Amendment. The country has for example already decided that felons cannot own guns. Should do the same for anyone who has a documented record of diagnosed mental illness, workplace violence, domestic violence, anger management issues, or any crime whatsoever, that involved a gun in any way whatsoever. Additionally we should consider treating guns for example the way we do cars, requiring mandatory titleing and tagging, requiring any transfer of ownership to be documented, requiring a searchable ownership and records history, requiring regular inspections, requiring written and practical exam, minimum mandatory health requirements and licensing, subject to periodic renewal, and that DOES NOT constitute "infringement."

All of this is an infringement, BY ITS VERY DEFINITION. I understand the ground game; change definitions of words to be cute, but no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.

That pesky constitution protected my reproductive rights until it didn't. It changes. Oh well

Lot harder to change 2nd amendment than one not explicitly mentioned

The justices just need to be changed, not the constitution or the amendments. We're not paying attention to how the right destroyed Roe?

It is an excellent playbook that does not rely on changing the document itself at all. Change out the justices that interpret it and problem solved!

You don't believe in a nation of laws. You believe in a nation of men. In other words, you're dangerous.

You have no morals. It's whatever playbook it takes for each specific situation and then turn it 180 degrees when that doesn't work for you, because the ends justify the means.

By your mindset, all the right has to do is change out the players and you'll be OK with it. If that means by violence, I'm sure you'll still be OK with it. Won't you?


Lookup the Korematsu decision. It was great while it lasted according to you, huh?

The Dred Scott decision was proper, correct?

Plessy vs. Ferguson was awesome, huh? Is that what you believe?

No need for thought. Just pack the court with your mob until you get your way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.

That pesky constitution protected my reproductive rights until it didn't. It changes. Oh well

Lot harder to change 2nd amendment than one not explicitly mentioned

There is a lot that can be done without changing the 2nd Amendment. The country has for example already decided that felons cannot own guns. Should do the same for anyone who has a documented record of diagnosed mental illness, workplace violence, domestic violence, anger management issues, or any crime whatsoever, that involved a gun in any way whatsoever. Additionally we should consider treating guns for example the way we do cars, requiring mandatory titleing and tagging, requiring any transfer of ownership to be documented, requiring a searchable ownership and records history, requiring regular inspections, requiring written and practical exam, minimum mandatory health requirements and licensing, subject to periodic renewal, and that DOES NOT constitute "infringement."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.

That pesky constitution protected my reproductive rights until it didn't. It changes. Oh well

Lot harder to change 2nd amendment than one not explicitly mentioned

The justices just need to be changed, not the constitution or the amendments. We're not paying attention to how the right destroyed Roe?

It is an excellent playbook that does not rely on changing the document itself at all. Change out the justices that interpret it and problem solved!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

Okay, PP, what do you propose? What specific policies do you suggest will address gun violence? Not sound bites like "get tough on crime". What specific policies do you expect to be implemented at the local, state and national level to address this beyond "thoughts and prayers"?

Yes, sorry to tell you, but your soft-on-crime attitudes are causing crime. Stop pushing new policy and putting law enforcement, judges and district attorneys in place that won't enforce the policies we already have instantiated. I know that doesn't comport with your pre-canned ideology. I don't really care.

BTW, violence with a flame thrower is so much better than "gun" violence. Maybe there is no gun violence? Maybe it's people who pull the trigger violence. But that would put the focus back on the offender and not the "gun". I have yet to find a trigger that pulls itself.

Nice straw man. I don't support "soft on crime" at all. I think the police should get paid to actually walk the beat and do the hard job of building community relationships rather than working desk jobs and banking over time. Do their f'ing jobs and only use lethal force when absolutely necessary. Get rid of the excess military equipment. Get rid of the bad apples that are currently protected by police unions. Eliminate qualified immunity. Force police officers to take out malpractice insurance like other professions. Give them more training. Give them more service providers that can provide mental health support so that police aren't called to do that job too. That's not soft on crime. That's sensible reforms that hold police accountable to the people they're supposed to protect and serve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.

That pesky constitution protected my reproductive rights until it didn't. It changes. Oh well

Lot harder to change 2nd amendment than one not explicitly mentioned

The bottom line is that until red states get their hell scape of letting anyone make bulk straw purchases under control, criminals everywhere will have free and easy access to guns. Gun sellers and politicians in red states knowingly turn blind eyes to criminal straw purchases and trafficking arming 13 year olds across the country. Don't tell me about knives, knives don't kill innocent bystanders in drive by shootings in cities, and a lot harder to do armed carjacking with a knife.

It's the guns and the red states freely arming criminals across America while ignoring that it's their OWN criminal gun dealers willing selling mass amounts of guns to criminals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.

That pesky constitution protected my reproductive rights until it didn't. It changes. Oh well

Uh, no it did not. There is nothing in the constitution about abortion. That’s actually why RvW was overturned, it’s a State issue specifically because it’s not there. Try again.

Uh, yes it did. SCOTUS said it did for almost 50 years. Then SCOTUS changed and the constitution changed to suit the new ones. See how that works?

Try again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.

That pesky constitution protected my reproductive rights until it didn't. It changes. Oh well

Uh, no it did not. There is nothing in the constitution about abortion. That’s actually why RvW was overturned, it’s a State issue specifically because it’s not there. Try again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

We already had an assault weapons ban for a decade. It was fine and did not need any of that.

Your assault weapons ban didn't cover any guns already in circulation.

Secondly, do you believe criminals are just going to turn in their guns?

Firstly, the argument was about the ban did not violate the constitution so don't change the subject.

Secondly. Some of the criminals will go for the cash and others will be subject to the penalties under the law for breaking the law.

Some of the criminals will print hundreds of weapons for under $100 and then turn them in to get a reward of several hundred. What's your point?

No subject was changed. The bottom is you want to penalize everyone for the actions of a few.... The democrat way as usual. Bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

You oppose gun control as is your right. Most voters want it. There is not tons of middle ground here but we go to the polls and decide the issue. We don't decide it with threats

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.

That pesky constitution protected my reproductive rights until it didn't. It changes. Oh well

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

We already had an assault weapons ban for a decade. It was fine and did not need any of that.

Your assault weapons ban didn't cover any guns already in circulation.

Secondly, do you believe criminals are just going to turn in their guns?

Firstly, the argument was about the ban did not violate the constitution so don't change the subject.

Secondly. Some of the criminals will go for the cash and others will be subject to the penalties under the law for breaking the law.

Some of the criminals will print hundreds of weapons for under $100 and then turn them in to get a reward of several hundred. What's your point?

No subject was changed. The bottom is you want to penalize everyone for the actions of a few.... The democrat way as usual. Bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.