Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This happened in California. It looks like a scene from a violent movie.

State with one of toughest set of gun laws. So only criminals have guns.

Does that not point out the real issue.

Most guns used in criminal activity are straw purchases from red states with lax gun laws trafficked across state lines. Red states contribute by making illegal straw purchases easy.

Blue states should just ban guns. Easy.

So you ignore the point that blue state laws don't matter when criminals source them from easy straw purchases in red states then traffic.

Blue states can’t enforce their laws? Why not?

Both red states and blue states have trouble enforcing laws. Different laws. Both a part of the problem that ends up with illegal purchases in red states contributing to illegal gun crime in blue states.

Why don't red states do more to arrest and prosecute straw purchasers?

When will you understand criminals don’t follow laws?

Ah so we shouldn't bother finding and arresting them for straw purchases or doing anything to prevent that? You only care about enforcing laws for some criminals, not all of them. Perhaps that is the logic in blue states - criminals don't follow laws, so why bother? Maybe they are just learning that same logic from the red states - criminals will illegally purchase and traffic guns in our states - so why bother?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This happened in California. It looks like a scene from a violent movie.

State with one of toughest set of gun laws. So only criminals have guns.

Does that not point out the real issue.

Most guns used in criminal activity are straw purchases from red states with lax gun laws trafficked across state lines. Red states contribute by making illegal straw purchases easy.

Blue states should just ban guns. Easy.

So you ignore the point that blue state laws don't matter when criminals source them from easy straw purchases in red states then traffic.

Blue states can’t enforce their laws? Why not?

Both red states and blue states have trouble enforcing laws. Different laws. Both a part of the problem that ends up with illegal purchases in red states contributing to illegal gun crime in blue states.

Why don't red states do more to arrest and prosecute straw purchasers?

When will you understand criminals don’t follow laws?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This happened in California. It looks like a scene from a violent movie.

State with one of toughest set of gun laws. So only criminals have guns.

Does that not point out the real issue.

Most guns used in criminal activity are straw purchases from red states with lax gun laws trafficked across state lines. Red states contribute by making illegal straw purchases easy.

Blue states should just ban guns. Easy.

So you ignore the point that blue state laws don't matter when criminals source them from easy straw purchases in red states then traffic.

Blue states can’t enforce their laws? Why not?

Both red states and blue states have trouble enforcing laws. Different laws. Both a part of the problem that ends up with illegal purchases in red states contributing to illegal gun crime in blue states.

Why don't red states do more to arrest and prosecute straw purchasers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This happened in California. It looks like a scene from a violent movie.

State with one of toughest set of gun laws. So only criminals have guns.

Does that not point out the real issue.

Most guns used in criminal activity are straw purchases from red states with lax gun laws trafficked across state lines. Red states contribute by making illegal straw purchases easy.

Blue states should just ban guns. Easy.

So you ignore the point that blue state laws don't matter when criminals source them from easy straw purchases in red states then traffic.

Blue states can’t enforce their laws? Why not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This happened in California. It looks like a scene from a violent movie.

State with one of toughest set of gun laws. So only criminals have guns.

Does that not point out the real issue.

Most guns used in criminal activity are straw purchases from red states with lax gun laws trafficked across state lines. Red states contribute by making illegal straw purchases easy.

Blue states should just ban guns. Easy.

So you ignore the point that blue state laws don't matter when criminals source them from easy straw purchases in red states then traffic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This happened in California. It looks like a scene from a violent movie.

State with one of toughest set of gun laws. So only criminals have guns.

Does that not point out the real issue.

Most guns used in criminal activity are straw purchases from red states with lax gun laws trafficked across state lines. Red states contribute by making illegal straw purchases easy.

Blue states should just ban guns. Easy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This happened in California. It looks like a scene from a violent movie.

State with one of toughest set of gun laws. So only criminals have guns.

Does that not point out the real issue.

Most guns used in criminal activity are straw purchases from red states with lax gun laws trafficked across state lines. Red states contribute by making illegal straw purchases easy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This happened in California. It looks like a scene from a violent movie.

State with one of toughest set of gun laws. So only criminals have guns.

Does that not point out the real issue.

We are pretending that law abiding legal gun owning American taxpayers are the problem, pal. Don’t bring your reality check into this conversation. 🤡

Anonymous wrote:The terms “common sense gun laws” and “common sense gun reform” have been flying around.But they seem to mean different things to different people.

What do you consider to be “common sense gun reform?”

If enacted, what would “common sense gun laws” look like?

Don't know but sounds like something the GOP would be against.

Anonymous wrote:

This happened in California. It looks like a scene from a violent movie.

State with one of toughest set of gun laws. So only criminals have guns.

Does that not point out the real issue.

Anonymous wrote:

This happened in California. It looks like a scene from a violent movie.

Impossible. Gun laws prevent such things this must be Florida or Texas.

This happened in California. It looks like a scene from a violent movie.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43

A federal appeals court ruled that Minnesota residents ages 18 to 20 should be able to publicly carry handguns under the Second Amendment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/07/17/minnesota-gun-carry-laws-court-ruling/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F3e5c6ec%2F6697ea2c5548d0083d7ae918%2F596bc2b7ae7e8a44e7dcaab7%2F28%2F55%2F6697ea2c5548d0083d7ae918

Anonymous wrote:13/50

You're a racist. We get it.