Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting opinion piece (written by former police officer) about why it's crazy we let civilians buy AR-15s.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html

its a civilian firearm . Or can you show us which military uses the AR-15?

There is nothing civil about an AR15.

It isn't used by the military. They use a firearm that looks simliar but has features that you can't get on the civilian market unless you have 10s of thousands of dollars, various tax payments, licensing etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting opinion piece (written by former police officer) about why it's crazy we let civilians buy AR-15s.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html

its a civilian firearm . Or can you show us which military uses the AR-15?

There is nothing civil about an AR15.

It isn't used by the military. They use a firearm that looks simliar but has features that you can't get on the civilian market unless you have 10s of thousands of dollars, various tax payments, licensing etc.

They do actually use AR-15s in some roles in the military but you are probably referring to the M-16 which is based on the AR-15, but has auto and 3-round burst modes which are not legal in civilian firearms without an FFL.

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:

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.

-Les show me where it’s mentioned in the document, I’ll wait.

Who cares what I say. I am nobody. Look up what SCOTUS said the document meant in 1972 and what it says now. In 1972, it said women had a right to privacy for these decisions. Now it says we don't. That is how it goes

Wrong. They say now since it’s not there, it is a State issue, which is correct. States now make the laws concerning abortion. Just like speed limits, etc.

Wrong. For 50 years it was not a state issue. What has changed is the make up if the court. That will change again and with that change it will become a protected right again. You are not paying attention.

Scalia, may he rot in Hell for all eternity, caused the change from the right to bear arms in a militia to the individual right to bear arms. That had previously never been the interpretation of 2A. His decision caused so many firearm deaths. I can't wait until we get a Supreme Court that respects prior decisions and reflects the will of Americans, which don't want millions of assault weapons in circulation where any mentally ill youngish male can get his hands on them and shoot innocent people just going about their daily lives. This bloodshed on American soil must end. Ban these weapons. Impeach Thomas for all his ethics violations and impeach that doofus Gorsuch and that imbecile Barrett for lying at their hearings that they respect stare decisis. Get a court that rules that guns belong in a well-ordered militia not in the homes of millions of Americans. Ban the sale, manufacture, import of all guns and gun parts as well as all ammunition, including ghost guns. And do this now. Save American lives.

There's nothing to say it can't be reinterpreted a different way. We need to change SCOTUS. That takes having control of the White House and the Senate. That should be a major focus for Democrats. And, when not in control of the White House or Senate, to ABSOLUTELY use every possible nuclear option to deny Republicans another SCOTUS choice.

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:

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.

-Les show me where it’s mentioned in the document, I’ll wait.

Who cares what I say. I am nobody. Look up what SCOTUS said the document meant in 1972 and what it says now. In 1972, it said women had a right to privacy for these decisions. Now it says we don't. That is how it goes

Wrong. They say now since it’s not there, it is a State issue, which is correct. States now make the laws concerning abortion. Just like speed limits, etc.

Wrong. For 50 years it was not a state issue. What has changed is the make up if the court. That will change again and with that change it will become a protected right again. You are not paying attention.

Scalia, may he rot in Hell for all eternity, caused the change from the right to bear arms in a militia to the individual right to bear arms. That had previously never been the interpretation of 2A. His decision caused so many firearm deaths. I can't wait until we get a Supreme Court that respects prior decisions and reflects the will of Americans, which don't want millions of assault weapons in circulation where any mentally ill youngish male can get his hands on them and shoot innocent people just going about their daily lives. This bloodshed on American soil must end. Ban these weapons. Impeach Thomas for all his ethics violations and impeach that doofus Gorsuch and that imbecile Barrett for lying at their hearings that they respect stare decisis. Get a court that rules that guns belong in a well-ordered militia not in the homes of millions of Americans. Ban the sale, manufacture, import of all guns and gun parts as well as all ammunition, including ghost guns. And do this now. Save American lives.

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:

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.

-Les show me where it’s mentioned in the document, I’ll wait.

Who cares what I say. I am nobody. Look up what SCOTUS said the document meant in 1972 and what it says now. In 1972, it said women had a right to privacy for these decisions. Now it says we don't. That is how it goes

Wrong. They say now since it’s not there, it is a State issue, which is correct. States now make the laws concerning abortion. Just like speed limits, etc.

Wrong. For 50 years it was not a state issue. What has changed is the make up if the court. That will change again and with that change it will become a protected right again. You are not paying attention.

Scalia, may he rot in Hell for all eternity, caused the change from the right to bear arms in a militia to the individual right to bear arms. That had previously never been the interpretation of 2A. His decision caused so many firearm deaths. I can't wait until we get a Supreme Court that respects prior decisions and reflects the will of Americans, which don't want millions of assault weapons in circulation where any mentally ill youngish male can get his hands on them and shoot innocent people just going about their daily lives. This bloodshed on American soil must end. Ban these weapons. Impeach Thomas for all his ethics violations and impeach that doofus Gorsuch and that imbecile Barrett for lying at their hearings that they respect stare decisis. Get a court that rules that guns belong in a well-ordered militia not in the homes of millions of Americans. Ban the sale, manufacture, import of all guns and gun parts as well as all ammunition, including ghost guns. And do this now. Save American lives.

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: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.

-Les show me where it’s mentioned in the document, I’ll wait.

Who cares what I say. I am nobody. Look up what SCOTUS said the document meant in 1972 and what it says now. In 1972, it said women had a right to privacy for these decisions. Now it says we don't. That is how it goes

Wrong. They say now since it’s not there, it is a State issue, which is correct. States now make the laws concerning abortion. Just like speed limits, etc.

Wrong. For 50 years it was not a state issue. What has changed is the make up if the court. That will change again and with that change it will become a protected right again. You are not paying attention.

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: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.

-Les show me where it’s mentioned in the document, I’ll wait.

Who cares what I say. I am nobody. Look up what SCOTUS said the document meant in 1972 and what it says now. In 1972, it said women had a right to privacy for these decisions. Now it says we don't. That is how it goes

Wrong. They say now since it’s not there, it is a State issue, which is correct. States now make the laws concerning abortion. Just like speed limits, etc.

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: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.

-Les show me where it’s mentioned in the document, I’ll wait.

Who cares what I say. I am nobody. Look up what SCOTUS said the document meant in 1972 and what it says now. In 1972, it said women had a right to privacy for these decisions. Now it says we don't. That is how it goes

Wrong. They say now since it’s not there, it is a State issue, which is correct. States now make the laws concerning abortion. Just like speed limits, etc.

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

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.

-Les show me where it’s mentioned in the document, I’ll wait.

Who cares what I say. I am nobody. Look up what SCOTUS said the document meant in 1972 and what it says now. In 1972, it said women had a right to privacy for these decisions. Now it says we don't. That is how it goes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting opinion piece (written by former police officer) about why it's crazy we let civilians buy AR-15s.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html

its a civilian firearm . Or can you show us which military uses the AR-15?

There is nothing civil about an AR15.

It isn't used by the military. They use a firearm that looks simliar but has features that you can't get on the civilian market unless you have 10s of thousands of dollars, various tax payments, licensing etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting opinion piece (written by former police officer) about why it's crazy we let civilians buy AR-15s.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html

its a civilian firearm . Or can you show us which military uses the AR-15?

There is nothing civil about an AR15.

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!

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

I consider men with weapons taking over state houses and breaking into the Capitol to be threatening. Don’t you?

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!

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:Interesting opinion piece (written by former police officer) about why it's crazy we let civilians buy AR-15s.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html

its a civilian firearm . Or can you show us which military uses the AR-15?