Robb Elementary School shooting

ffreeloader

Well-known member
This sounds lovely, but would require state intrusiveness and snitching to be the bedrocks of your society for such policies to be even mildly effective.

You have not thought through the consequences of you policy ideas.

Therefore, something.

Perhaps you think traffic regulations prevent fatalities? We know that you would not be able to test that assertion against the ideal of liberty.

What you want is your restrictions implemented. What you're unwilling to consider is that doing so requires the subjugation of individual wills. And the best arguments you have for people to bow to your agenda are emotionalism.
That is his only argument as it is the left's only argument.
 

marke

Well-known member
Clearly, we do not. Because obviously irresponsible people are buying guns every day and then killing people with them. The guy in Texas was an obviously dangerous nut-job, and everyone around him knew it. The guy in New York, likewise. But we have no actual mechanisms in place to discover this when people want to buy guns. We need to license the ownership and use of firearms so we can put in place mechanisms that will help us to uncover these people, and stop them from being able to get hold of guns.

But of course the NRA will fight ANY real regulation tooth and nail, because all they really care about is selling more guns. So they want anyone and everyone to be able to buy them and damn the consequences.

All we have are idiotic, willy-nilly fake regulations that even when enforce, and they are not enforced most of the time, do little to nothing to actually keep deadly weapons away from the people that are most likely to commit murder with them. We regulate the ownership and use of automobiles FAR more carefully and stringently than we regulate deliberately designed killing machines.
You put a lot of hope and confidence in ideas that wiser people know will not do what the gun-grabbers think.
 

Idolater

"Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan..."
Emotionalism is their only argument.

That's why they start shouting when there is a particularly emotional incident.

"It's all part of the plan."
If it's not literally true, there's certainly no perceptible difference. They use mass murderers as poster children. Is it written in any playbook? I can't tell, because it looks like it could be, and if that's just accidental, then what's the difference anyway? They use mass murderers as their poster children.
 

Idolater

"Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan..."
Headline: "GUN SAVES LIVES"

Even though that headline would be factually accurate, you'll never see it.
You'd see it on the NRA's website. Republicans don't use this as part of their electioneering but that doesn't stop the NRA from being more factually accurate. The NRA constantly monitors headlines from smaller news outlets all around the country, looking specifically for any and all defensive gun use (DGU). There are usually more than one published story a day of a DGU in America, and it has been uncontrovertibly shown that these DGUs are underreported by at least a factor of 100 if not by 10,000 or more.
It's why I've always hated the lying, liberal press.
As things stand there's no chance you'd see "gun saves lives" in or on the New York Times. But unlikely also in the Wall Street Journal. Except where the NYT tends to be more avant-garde when it comes to leaning more liberal (liberal meaning here; more toward expanding rather than limiting rights), compared with the WSJ's comparatively measured stance on ever wandering closer to Democratic ideology than they're at.

You might be tempted to think that the NYT in being ideologically avant-garde makes that newspaper more mature in some sense, but that only makes sense if you beg the question that the NYT's canonical ideology is correct. Since it isn't correct that the NYT dabbles in "Originalist" ideology and explores it sometimes only means that they are aware of the factually accurate truth, they can comprehend it, but they are being juvenile about their thought.

These are usually extremely well decorated pedigreed people at the NYT, and within the Democratic party, mind you. So the condemnation is even more severe than it might appear at first blush----they should know better.
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Temp Banned
Schumer Brags After Blocking GOP School Safety Bill In Senate

After all of his talk about wanting to protect kids in schools from shootings Senate Majority Leader and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer blocked a bill by Republicans to do exactly that.

On Thursday the New York senator blocked the Luke and Alex School Safety Act after Republican Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson asked for it to be passed by unanimous consent, Fox News reported.

The bill, named after Parkland, Florida, shooting victims Luke Hoyer and Alex Schachter, would require the Department of Homeland Security to establish a “Federal Clearinghouse on School Safety Best Practices” for use by state and local educational and law-enforcement agencies, institutions of higher education, health professionals, and the public. And it would require DHS to “collect clearinghouse data analytics, user feedback on the implementation of best practices and recommendations identified by the clearinghouse, and any evaluations conducted on these best practices and recommendation
s.”

As usual, the Democrats are the true criminals here. As usual they try to blame others for things that THEY are guilty of.
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Temp Banned
As I already stated, Democrats promote the slaughter of millions of children through the infanticide of abortion, so when it comes to children, they can just shut up.

Second of all, there is a price to pay for living in a free society. Criminals and terrorists and others take advantage of our openness and do us harm. That is a price we pay to live free.. The alternative is the Marxist lockdown state the Democrats want.

A famous man once said, its better for a hundred criminals to walk free than for an innocent man to go to prison. This is how our society is constructed, and as I said, we pay a price for our freedom.

Furthermore, gun ownership saves more lives that it costs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded, almost every major study on the issue has found that Americans use their firearms in lawful self-defense between 500,000 and 3 million times a year.

I prefer to live free, with my rights and with my guns. I prefer to be a well armed citizen so I can protect myself and my neighbor. The disgusting filthy grooming Democrats will always use a sad event to try to take away our freedom and our rights.

Let's send the Karens a message in November that they can take their Marxist authoritarianism, and their anti-constitution whining, and go back under the rocks they came from.

lmall-for-total-gun-controland-trusting-the-government-to-protect-2701418.png
 
Last edited:

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Second of all, there is a price to pay for living in a free society. Criminals and terrorists and others take advantage of our openness and do us harm. That is a price we pay to live free..
Do you believe that your crazy Marxist neighbor has the right to own weapons of mass destruction? According to your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, he does.

The alternative is the Marxist lockdown state the Democrats want.
Countries with strict gun control laws include the UK, Australia, Germany, Japan, and South Korea. None of them are "Marxist lockdown states."
 

PureX

Well-known member
It's too bad our founding fathers made gun ownership legal for reasons you completely ignore. The second amendment is to guaranty that government has a healthy fear of the people rising up and overthrowing it when it attempts to become authoritarian because that is the tendency of all governments over time. They accumulate power over time.
Nowhere does it say anything of the sort. In fact, it refers to a REGULATED citizen's militia. Regulated by whom? ... The government, of course. And even that was referring to a nation that had no standing military.

Also, in a democracy YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. The whole structure of U.S. government was based on that ideal. So there was no provision necessary, nor being made, for the citizenry to be armed and ready fight the government. Which I assume is the idiotic fantasy that you are envisioning, here. Now that we have a standing military, made up of citizens, we have no need for a citizen's militia as envisioned by the founders. So this whole "point" is pointless and meaningless.
 

marke

Well-known member
Nowhere does it say anything of the sort. In fact, it refers to a REGULATED citizen's militia. Regulated by whom? ... The government, of course. And even that was referring to a nation that had no standing military.

Also, in a democracy YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. The whole structure of U.S. government was based on that ideal. So there was no provision necessary, nor being made, for the citizenry to be armed and ready fight the government. Which I assume is the idiotic fantasy that you are envisioning, here. Now that we have a standing military, made up of citizens, we have no need for a citizen's militia as envisioned by the founders. So this whole "point" is pointless and meaningless.
Americans have always protected their right to own guns for defense against all enemies of the US, both foreign and domestic enemies who hate America and want to take guns away so they can force Americans to convert America into a third-world Marxist state ruled by atheistic fascist oligarchs.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Nowhere does it say anything of the sort. In fact, it refers to a REGULATED citizen's militia.
It refers to "a well regulated militia"

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Regulated by whom? ...
No

"Well regulated" in this sense means well-trained, proficient.
The government, of course.
Nope
And even that was referring to a nation that had no standing military.
Wrong again
Also, in a democracy YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. The whole structure of U.S. government was based on that ideal. So there was no provision necessary, nor being made, for the citizenry to be armed and ready fight the government. Which I assume is the idiotic fantasy that you are envisioning, here. Now that we have a standing military, made up of citizens, we have no need for a citizen's militia as envisioned by the founders. So this whole "point" is pointless and meaningless.
Wrong on every point, which should be expected when you start from a wrong starting point.
 
Top