(06-12-2022 07:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:37 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:29 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:57 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:41 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  But yet you leave out half the amendment.

I don't leave anything out. The people are the militia. There is no ambiguity except for those who seek to corrupt the meaning.

Remember when you're soon celebrating the Dobbs decision, your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the current importance placed on "shall not be infringed" vs. "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is worth exactly what 5 Justices agree it is worth in a given case. The Constitution isn't the problem at all, rightwing interpretation of the Constitution is. And fortunately that is much easier to change.

Stupid comparison. The right to kill babies is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The right to bear arms is specifically enumerated. The only way it changes is if you leftists steal enough elections to completely corrupt the Supreme Court.

Indeed, the words "abortion" or other terms related to the termination of a pregnancy do not appear in the Constitution. Neither does "individual right to bear arms", "assault weapons" (or any definition of "arms" actually), "high-capacity magazines", etc. Just remember that the barriers to reasonable gun laws supported by the majority of people are built of the same fragile stuff as the Constitutional right to reproductive freedom that the Court will likely have swept away before this time next week.

Conservatives only use the strict constructionist argument when it's convenient to them. Otherwise they avoid the judicial philosophy as much as liberals. That's one of the main reasons why it's such a dangerous judicial philosophy. It completely takes empathy out of the equation when it clashes with the politics of the judge. This is crazy since this applies to the courts which are supposed to take empathy into account to fill in any vagueness of the law.

(06-12-2022 07:38 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:32 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:28 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 06:30 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:56 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  If those aren't effective ways to resolve the problem, then why do you think mass shootings are rare events in Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand?

Only morons make these comparisons.

Complete morons.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

What comparison do brainiacs make? Should we compare ourselves to Russia or China?

What other country has the Constitution standing in the way and has a comparable population?

Start there assclown.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Really? Homophobic jokes is all you got?

For the record, what percentage of GUN OWNERS in the US favor gun control?

Assclown is a homophobic joke now... bwahahaha nice.

Define "gun control"

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(06-12-2022 07:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:37 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:29 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:57 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:41 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  But yet you leave out half the amendment.

I don't leave anything out. The people are the militia. There is no ambiguity except for those who seek to corrupt the meaning.

Remember when you're soon celebrating the Dobbs decision, your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the current importance placed on "shall not be infringed" vs. "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is worth exactly what 5 Justices agree it is worth in a given case. The Constitution isn't the problem at all, rightwing interpretation of the Constitution is. And fortunately that is much easier to change.

Stupid comparison. The right to kill babies is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The right to bear arms is specifically enumerated. The only way it changes is if you leftists steal enough elections to completely corrupt the Supreme Court.

Indeed, the words "abortion" or other terms related to the termination of a pregnancy do not appear in the Constitution. Neither does "individual right to bear arms", "assault weapons" (or any definition of "arms" actually), "high-capacity magazines", etc. Just remember that the barriers to reasonable gun laws supported by the majority of people are built of the same fragile stuff as the Constitutional right to reproductive freedom that the Court will likely have swept away before this time next week.

There is no Constitutional right to kill babies. The rest is just leftist gibberish.

(06-12-2022 08:12 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:37 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:29 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:57 PM)appst89 Wrote:  I don't leave anything out. The people are the militia. There is no ambiguity except for those who seek to corrupt the meaning.

Remember when you're soon celebrating the Dobbs decision, your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the current importance placed on "shall not be infringed" vs. "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is worth exactly what 5 Justices agree it is worth in a given case. The Constitution isn't the problem at all, rightwing interpretation of the Constitution is. And fortunately that is much easier to change.

Stupid comparison. The right to kill babies is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The right to bear arms is specifically enumerated. The only way it changes is if you leftists steal enough elections to completely corrupt the Supreme Court.

Indeed, the words "abortion" or other terms related to the termination of a pregnancy do not appear in the Constitution. Neither does "individual right to bear arms", "assault weapons" (or any definition of "arms" actually), "high-capacity magazines", etc. Just remember that the barriers to reasonable gun laws supported by the majority of people are built of the same fragile stuff as the Constitutional right to reproductive freedom that the Court will likely have swept away before this time next week.

Conservatives only use the strict constructionist argument when it's convenient to them. Otherwise they avoid the judicial philosophy as much as liberals. That's one of the main reasons why it's such a dangerous judicial philosophy. It completely takes empathy out of the equation when it clashes with the politics of the judge. This is crazy since this applies to the courts which are supposed to take empathy into account to fill in any vagueness of the law.

There is a method to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it means what it says.

I will agree with you, though that it doesn't say anything about the right to bare arms.

(06-12-2022 08:13 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:38 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:32 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:28 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 06:30 PM)maximus Wrote:  Only morons make these comparisons.

Complete morons.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

What comparison do brainiacs make? Should we compare ourselves to Russia or China?

What other country has the Constitution standing in the way and has a comparable population?

Start there assclown.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Really? Homophobic jokes is all you got?

For the record, what percentage of GUN OWNERS in the US favor gun control?

Assclown is a homophobic joke now... bwahahaha nice.

Define "gun control"

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Lmao. I was wondering the same thing.

I love how they just make shite up like this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(06-12-2022 08:25 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 08:12 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:37 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:29 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Remember when you're soon celebrating the Dobbs decision, your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the current importance placed on "shall not be infringed" vs. "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is worth exactly what 5 Justices agree it is worth in a given case. The Constitution isn't the problem at all, rightwing interpretation of the Constitution is. And fortunately that is much easier to change.

Stupid comparison. The right to kill babies is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The right to bear arms is specifically enumerated. The only way it changes is if you leftists steal enough elections to completely corrupt the Supreme Court.

Indeed, the words "abortion" or other terms related to the termination of a pregnancy do not appear in the Constitution. Neither does "individual right to bear arms", "assault weapons" (or any definition of "arms" actually), "high-capacity magazines", etc. Just remember that the barriers to reasonable gun laws supported by the majority of people are built of the same fragile stuff as the Constitutional right to reproductive freedom that the Court will likely have swept away before this time next week.

Conservatives only use the strict constructionist argument when it's convenient to them. Otherwise they avoid the judicial philosophy as much as liberals. That's one of the main reasons why it's such a dangerous judicial philosophy. It completely takes empathy out of the equation when it clashes with the politics of the judge. This is crazy since this applies to the courts which are supposed to take empathy into account to fill in any vagueness of the law.

There is a method to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it means what it says.

Cling to your fantasy that there is nothing ambiguous in the 2nd Amendment all you like, there is plenty there for 5 willing Justices to interpret that can land anywhere from zero private gun ownership allowed outside of state-run militias to zero restrictions on arms allowed whatsoever.

(06-12-2022 08:32 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 08:25 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 08:12 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:37 PM)appst89 Wrote:  Stupid comparison. The right to kill babies is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The right to bear arms is specifically enumerated. The only way it changes is if you leftists steal enough elections to completely corrupt the Supreme Court.

Indeed, the words "abortion" or other terms related to the termination of a pregnancy do not appear in the Constitution. Neither does "individual right to bear arms", "assault weapons" (or any definition of "arms" actually), "high-capacity magazines", etc. Just remember that the barriers to reasonable gun laws supported by the majority of people are built of the same fragile stuff as the Constitutional right to reproductive freedom that the Court will likely have swept away before this time next week.

Conservatives only use the strict constructionist argument when it's convenient to them. Otherwise they avoid the judicial philosophy as much as liberals. That's one of the main reasons why it's such a dangerous judicial philosophy. It completely takes empathy out of the equation when it clashes with the politics of the judge. This is crazy since this applies to the courts which are supposed to take empathy into account to fill in any vagueness of the law.

There is a method to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it means what it says.

Cling to your fantasy that there is nothing ambiguous in the 2nd Amendment all you like, there is plenty there for 5 willing Justices to interpret that can land anywhere from zero private gun ownership allowed outside of state-run militias to zero restrictions on arms allowed whatsoever.

If it is fantasy, it's better than yours of a leftist utopia. I'll take my chances. If you ever mange to subvert the 2nd, you will definitely get the end of America that you so desire.

(06-12-2022 08:32 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 08:25 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 08:12 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:37 PM)appst89 Wrote:  Stupid comparison. The right to kill babies is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The right to bear arms is specifically enumerated. The only way it changes is if you leftists steal enough elections to completely corrupt the Supreme Court.

Indeed, the words "abortion" or other terms related to the termination of a pregnancy do not appear in the Constitution. Neither does "individual right to bear arms", "assault weapons" (or any definition of "arms" actually), "high-capacity magazines", etc. Just remember that the barriers to reasonable gun laws supported by the majority of people are built of the same fragile stuff as the Constitutional right to reproductive freedom that the Court will likely have swept away before this time next week.

Conservatives only use the strict constructionist argument when it's convenient to them. Otherwise they avoid the judicial philosophy as much as liberals. That's one of the main reasons why it's such a dangerous judicial philosophy. It completely takes empathy out of the equation when it clashes with the politics of the judge. This is crazy since this applies to the courts which are supposed to take empathy into account to fill in any vagueness of the law.

There is a method to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it means what it says.

Cling to your fantasy that there is nothing ambiguous in the 2nd Amendment all you like, there is plenty there for 5 willing Justices to interpret that can land anywhere from zero private gun ownership allowed outside of state-run militias to zero restrictions on arms allowed whatsoever.

This is another example of where conservatives avoid the strict constructionist argument. Or rather avoid the actual text of the Constitution in favor of the text of something like the Federalist papers, which is NOT the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment reads:

“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.”

The NRA and Republicans in general wants everyone to simply forget the "well regulated Militia" part. The fact it is the first part of the sentence, obviously suggests it's the purpose or the "meat" of the amendment.

In my opinion, the creation of our military fullfills the purpose of the 2nd amendment as strictly written. The government and thus the military is owned and controlled by "We the People". If that is not "the people" keeping and bearing Arms as a well regulated militia for the security of a free state, I don't know what is. Any notion of being allowed to own a gun personally should fall under word "liberty" in the 14th amendment now.

This photo was taken in the lobby of the NRA's DC lobbying headquarters. That is clear deception right when you walk into the door.

(06-12-2022 08:32 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 08:25 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 08:12 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:37 PM)appst89 Wrote:  Stupid comparison. The right to kill babies is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The right to bear arms is specifically enumerated. The only way it changes is if you leftists steal enough elections to completely corrupt the Supreme Court.

Indeed, the words "abortion" or other terms related to the termination of a pregnancy do not appear in the Constitution. Neither does "individual right to bear arms", "assault weapons" (or any definition of "arms" actually), "high-capacity magazines", etc. Just remember that the barriers to reasonable gun laws supported by the majority of people are built of the same fragile stuff as the Constitutional right to reproductive freedom that the Court will likely have swept away before this time next week.

Conservatives only use the strict constructionist argument when it's convenient to them. Otherwise they avoid the judicial philosophy as much as liberals. That's one of the main reasons why it's such a dangerous judicial philosophy. It completely takes empathy out of the equation when it clashes with the politics of the judge. This is crazy since this applies to the courts which are supposed to take empathy into account to fill in any vagueness of the law.

There is a method to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it means what it says.

Cling to your fantasy that there is nothing ambiguous in the 2nd Amendment all you like, there is plenty there for 5 willing Justices to interpret that can land anywhere from zero private gun ownership allowed outside of state-run militias to zero restrictions on arms allowed whatsoever.

JUST SAY IT!!!!!

GO AHEAD, DONT BE SCARED

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Hand, feet, and fist control now!!

And Mr X, im not being homophobic.. no matter how much you like fists



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(06-12-2022 09:53 PM)maximus Wrote:  Hand, feet, and fist control now!!

And Mr X, im not being homophobic.. no matter how much you like fists



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Knife control now!

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(06-12-2022 09:53 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 09:53 PM)maximus Wrote:  Hand, feet, and fist control now!!

And Mr X, im not being homophobic.. no matter how much you like fists



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Knife control now!

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Hammer control now!!!



Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(06-12-2022 07:17 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:53 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:56 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 03:15 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I celebrate the news that the Senate seems to have agreement on doing something this time, but the announced deal is only a step in the right direction. Until we emulate other wealthy Western countries with universal healthcare to address our mental health problem and common-sense gun laws that remove weapons of war from the hands of the general populace, we're going to suffer this plague of gun violence. It's only hard here because the GOP/NRA make it that way, these tragedies are rare in every other wealthy Western nation.

Kindly explain how either of those steps would address the problem.

If those aren't effective ways to resolve the problem, then why do you think mass shootings are rare events in Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand?

It's a lack of proper raising of kids like parents did back in the 60's and before, and a mental health issue. The mental health issue is driven by the lack of manners and respect being taught to the kids growing up, the influence of social media on the kids, and the increase in illegal drug use.

Years ago - 60's and before - many high schools had gun clubs where kids openly brought their guns into the schools. It wasn't unusual to see a pickup truck in the school parking lot with a rifle hanging on a rack in the back window any day of the school year - and no one got shot at school. We also didn't have the mall, supermarket, and church shootings that frequent the news these days. It isn't a gun problem. It's a society problem. Don't infringe on the 2nd amendment to try to fix that problem.

Indeed, I agree with you that much of it is a society problem. And there is no legislation that can bring back the society of the 1950s, no matter how much the GOP may wish and even try to do so in many areas. Our peer nations have dealt with the perils of modern society much more successfully through actually achievable means - increasing access to mental healthcare and restricting access to the deadliest weapons.

(06-12-2022 06:30 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:56 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 03:15 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I celebrate the news that the Senate seems to have agreement on doing something this time, but the announced deal is only a step in the right direction. Until we emulate other wealthy Western countries with universal healthcare to address our mental health problem and common-sense gun laws that remove weapons of war from the hands of the general populace, we're going to suffer this plague of gun violence. It's only hard here because the GOP/NRA make it that way, these tragedies are rare in every other wealthy Western nation.

Kindly explain how either of those steps would address the problem.

If those aren't effective ways to resolve the problem, then why do you think mass shootings are rare events in Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand?

Only morons make these comparisons.

Complete morons.

Typical rightwing response, along with the calls for those who are tired of daily mass shootings to emigrate. Never is the question actually answered though because you have no answer, which is why you hate this being pointed out. The scarcity of mass shootings in comparable nations compared to the US definitely establishes that a combination of mental healthcare and gun control measures can make these events much less common.

The answer you are looking for is not one you really want to hear. Not only that but our media and congress is afraid to point out when it comes to death by guns. Or murder, period.

I'm going to let you connect the dots on the % and the last number is total

New Zealand 1.5%, 25,750,198 people
Canada 3.5%, 38,246,108
UK 3%, 68,207,116
Australia 1.6%, 25,750,198

Combined total population of 157,953,620
Average 2.4% or (x)3,790,886

USA 332,915,073
(x)44,610,619

When you compare (x) those 4 countries combine have 17% compared to America. Use those numbers and then the gun ownership and you will most likely have the answer as to why there's a lot more deaths by gun in the USA

I'm going to let you connect those dots but that's the most truthful answer you are going to get. People like you or our media and congress are 100% afraid to look at the real answer to the number of deaths by gun in America. One last clue just so there's no doubt you should be able to connect those dots... homicides (per 100,000 people) -

USA 5.0 2019
South Africa 36 2017

"The homicide rate on the African continent is higher than the global average, and far higher than the rates found in Europe or Asia, according to a report released Monday by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNDOC).

The Global Study on Homicide 2019 report puts the African homicide rate at 13 victims per 100,000 people, with the global rate at 6.1 victims"

I'm not a gun owner and think a person should be 21 to buy a gun. Or go through a couple week training and need to pass that test if under the age of 21. Not only learning to handle the gun but a mental type test that someone has to sign off on. But lets be serious....the real problem and answer is in the above information and till that is addressed you, media, congress or the president is really not interested in going at this "problem".

Now you tell me why South Africa's murder rate is 7x as high as America? Then tell me what South Africa has in common with


Baltimore, Maryland 50.62 per 100,000
Birmingham, Alabama 50.62 per 100,000
Detroit, Michigan 41.45 per 100,000 residents

(06-12-2022 04:56 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Kindly explain how either of those steps would address the problem.

If those aren't effective ways to resolve the problem, then why do you think mass shootings are rare events in Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand?

Clearly not their gun laws. Their rates of gun violence, including mass shootings, were very low before they put those laws on their books.

(06-12-2022 09:31 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 08:32 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 08:25 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 08:12 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 07:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Indeed, the words "abortion" or other terms related to the termination of a pregnancy do not appear in the Constitution. Neither does "individual right to bear arms", "assault weapons" (or any definition of "arms" actually), "high-capacity magazines", etc. Just remember that the barriers to reasonable gun laws supported by the majority of people are built of the same fragile stuff as the Constitutional right to reproductive freedom that the Court will likely have swept away before this time next week.

Conservatives only use the strict constructionist argument when it's convenient to them. Otherwise they avoid the judicial philosophy as much as liberals. That's one of the main reasons why it's such a dangerous judicial philosophy. It completely takes empathy out of the equation when it clashes with the politics of the judge. This is crazy since this applies to the courts which are supposed to take empathy into account to fill in any vagueness of the law.

There is a method to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it means what it says.

Cling to your fantasy that there is nothing ambiguous in the 2nd Amendment all you like, there is plenty there for 5 willing Justices to interpret that can land anywhere from zero private gun ownership allowed outside of state-run militias to zero restrictions on arms allowed whatsoever.

This is another example of where conservatives avoid the strict constructionist argument. Or rather avoid the actual text of the Constitution in favor of the text of something like the Federalist papers, which is NOT the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment reads:

“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.”

The NRA and Republicans in general wants everyone to simply forget the "well regulated Militia" part. The fact it is the first part of the sentence, obviously suggests it's the purpose or the "meat" of the amendment.

In my opinion, the creation of our military fullfills the purpose of the 2nd amendment as strictly written. The government and thus the military is owned and controlled by "We the People". If that is not "the people" keeping and bearing Arms as a well regulated militia for the security of a free state, I don't know what is. Any notion of being allowed to own a gun personally should fall under word "liberty" in the 14th amendment now.

This photo was taken in the lobby of the NRA's DC lobbying headquarters. That is clear deception right when you walk into the door.

Thankfully, the Constitution of the United States of America isn't open to or changed by your opinion. The words say what they say and are very clearly written in English. Understand the words, and you'll understand the message.

Back at the time the Constitution was written, the new country had just defeated the British using the Continental ARMY as well as the civilian Militia. In other words, Thomas Jefferson was unquestionably aware of the difference between the two and made NO mistake in his use of the word Militia along with the words "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” He wanted the civilian population to forever be allowed to "keep and bear Arms". Those civilians make up the militias. Had he been talking about the formal military he would have stated it as such with reference to a Continental Army, or something similar to that (not a civilian Militia bearing arms). See the 1st link below for clarity and to learn something.

There was even an armed, civilian, Militia in WWII. See the 2nd link below for clarity and to learn something.

https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/12/mil...tinentals/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard...rld%20War.

(06-12-2022 07:17 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:53 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:56 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 03:15 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I celebrate the news that the Senate seems to have agreement on doing something this time, but the announced deal is only a step in the right direction. Until we emulate other wealthy Western countries with universal healthcare to address our mental health problem and common-sense gun laws that remove weapons of war from the hands of the general populace, we're going to suffer this plague of gun violence. It's only hard here because the GOP/NRA make it that way, these tragedies are rare in every other wealthy Western nation.

Kindly explain how either of those steps would address the problem.

If those aren't effective ways to resolve the problem, then why do you think mass shootings are rare events in Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand?

It's a lack of proper raising of kids like parents did back in the 60's and before, and a mental health issue. The mental health issue is driven by the lack of manners and respect being taught to the kids growing up, the influence of social media on the kids, and the increase in illegal drug use.

Years ago - 60's and before - many high schools had gun clubs where kids openly brought their guns into the schools. It wasn't unusual to see a pickup truck in the school parking lot with a rifle hanging on a rack in the back window any day of the school year - and no one got shot at school. We also didn't have the mall, supermarket, and church shootings that frequent the news these days. It isn't a gun problem. It's a society problem. Don't infringe on the 2nd amendment to try to fix that problem.

Indeed, I agree with you that much of it is a society problem. And there is no legislation that can bring back the society of the 1950s, no matter how much the GOP may wish and even try to do so in many areas. Our peer nations have dealt with the perils of modern society much more successfully through actually achievable means - increasing access to mental healthcare and restricting access to the deadliest weapons.

(06-12-2022 06:30 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:56 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 03:15 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I celebrate the news that the Senate seems to have agreement on doing something this time, but the announced deal is only a step in the right direction. Until we emulate other wealthy Western countries with universal healthcare to address our mental health problem and common-sense gun laws that remove weapons of war from the hands of the general populace, we're going to suffer this plague of gun violence. It's only hard here because the GOP/NRA make it that way, these tragedies are rare in every other wealthy Western nation.

Kindly explain how either of those steps would address the problem.

If those aren't effective ways to resolve the problem, then why do you think mass shootings are rare events in Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand?

Only morons make these comparisons.

Complete morons.

Typical rightwing response, along with the calls for those who are tired of daily mass shootings to emigrate. Never is the question actually answered though because you have no answer, which is why you hate this being pointed out. The scarcity of mass shootings in comparable nations compared to the US definitely establishes that a combination of mental healthcare and gun control measures can make these events much less common.

Doesn’t establish anything of the sort.

“Mass shootings” was very conveniently redefined under the zerO admin, likely at the direction of the contemptible witHolder. Why? To drive up the numbers by including the gangbangers in the dim run cities shooting each other every weekend for sport.

School shootings? Until Uladge I don’t recall one in the last 4 years or so.

And to answer your previous nonsense, who is typically the coward murderer in these events? Yes, children. So indeed we do have a children problem, likely a fatherless or absent or irresponsible parent problem.

Taking a bunch of guns away from deer and turkey hunters, or those that simply want to protect their families would solve NONE of these issues.

(06-12-2022 07:24 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 12:07 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Nothing in this proposed "gun safety" bill would have prevented Uvalde or Parkland or Sandy Hook.

What would have prevented all of them would be 1) better mental health processes for identifying violent nutcases and taking them out of circulation into mental hospitals, and 2) improved physical security around schools and other "gun free zones," including access restrictions and controls enforced by armed security.

Anything that reduces the number of guns per capita in society is going to reduce gun deaths and violence PERIOD. So if this bill accomplishes fewer guns on the street, we have a start to solving the problem. That being said, I bet this is just another Lucy holding the football tactic by Republicans. McConnell, Trump or someone else like the NRA will come out against it, and that will doom the whole thing. Seems to be the go-to tactic for Republicans the past couple decades, on almost all issues of responsible government, including gun control.

Lol

Did you just say “responsible government”?

And didn’t include a winky or laughing emoji?!?

GTFOHWTS

Too much, too too funny.

(06-12-2022 05:53 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:56 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 03:15 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I celebrate the news that the Senate seems to have agreement on doing something this time, but the announced deal is only a step in the right direction. Until we emulate other wealthy Western countries with universal healthcare to address our mental health problem and common-sense gun laws that remove weapons of war from the hands of the general populace, we're going to suffer this plague of gun violence. It's only hard here because the GOP/NRA make it that way, these tragedies are rare in every other wealthy Western nation.

Kindly explain how either of those steps would address the problem.

If those aren't effective ways to resolve the problem, then why do you think mass shootings are rare events in Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand?

It's a lack of proper raising of kids like parents did back in the 60's and before, and a mental health issue. The mental health issue is driven by the lack of manners and respect being taught to the kids growing up, the influence of social media on the kids, and the increase in illegal drug use.

Years ago - 60's and before - many high schools had gun clubs where kids openly brought their guns into the schools. It wasn't unusual to see a pickup truck in the school parking lot with a rifle hanging on a rack in the back window any day of the school year - and no one got shot at school. We also didn't have the mall, supermarket, and church shootings that frequent the news these days. It isn't a gun problem. It's a society problem. Don't infringe on the 2nd amendment to try to fix that problem.

Every kid I knew that drove a pickup truck to school had an EZ Rider rifle rack in the window with at least a 12 gauge and a 30/30 in it. I never worried about them being stolen because everyone had them.

(06-12-2022 07:17 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:53 PM)ODU BBALL Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:56 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 03:15 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I celebrate the news that the Senate seems to have agreement on doing something this time, but the announced deal is only a step in the right direction. Until we emulate other wealthy Western countries with universal healthcare to address our mental health problem and common-sense gun laws that remove weapons of war from the hands of the general populace, we're going to suffer this plague of gun violence. It's only hard here because the GOP/NRA make it that way, these tragedies are rare in every other wealthy Western nation.

Kindly explain how either of those steps would address the problem.

If those aren't effective ways to resolve the problem, then why do you think mass shootings are rare events in Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand?

It's a lack of proper raising of kids like parents did back in the 60's and before, and a mental health issue. The mental health issue is driven by the lack of manners and respect being taught to the kids growing up, the influence of social media on the kids, and the increase in illegal drug use.

Years ago - 60's and before - many high schools had gun clubs where kids openly brought their guns into the schools. It wasn't unusual to see a pickup truck in the school parking lot with a rifle hanging on a rack in the back window any day of the school year - and no one got shot at school. We also didn't have the mall, supermarket, and church shootings that frequent the news these days. It isn't a gun problem. It's a society problem. Don't infringe on the 2nd amendment to try to fix that problem.

Indeed, I agree with you that much of it is a society problem. And there is no legislation that can bring back the society of the 1950s, no matter how much the GOP may wish and even try to do so in many areas. Our peer nations have dealt with the perils of modern society much more successfully through actually achievable means - increasing access to mental healthcare and restricting access to the deadliest weapons.

(06-12-2022 06:30 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:56 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 04:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 03:15 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  I celebrate the news that the Senate seems to have agreement on doing something this time, but the announced deal is only a step in the right direction. Until we emulate other wealthy Western countries with universal healthcare to address our mental health problem and common-sense gun laws that remove weapons of war from the hands of the general populace, we're going to suffer this plague of gun violence. It's only hard here because the GOP/NRA make it that way, these tragedies are rare in every other wealthy Western nation.

Kindly explain how either of those steps would address the problem.

If those aren't effective ways to resolve the problem, then why do you think mass shootings are rare events in Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand?

Only morons make these comparisons.

Complete morons.

Typical rightwing response, along with the calls for those who are tired of daily mass shootings to emigrate. Never is the question actually answered though because you have no answer, which is why you hate this being pointed out. The scarcity of mass shootings in comparable nations compared to the US definitely establishes that a combination of mental healthcare and gun control measures can make these events much less common.

The left has no answers either hoss. NONE of what they are proposing will stop anything. Just wait, when all this is passed not one person will be saved by it. There will still be events like this that the left will seize upon to advance their agenda farther. Will you be happy when law abiding citizens will no longer have the means by which to protect themselves against gun toting criminals who WILL NOT OBEY THE NEW LAWS?? They already don't obey the law, they break them at their leisure.

You are an idiot if you think we will all be safer.

(06-12-2022 07:22 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:57 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:41 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:38 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 05:15 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  You mean like when the militias stopped getting funded by the federal and state governments?

No, that's not what I mean. The 2nd Amendment was to protect the people from the government. Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says.

But yet you leave out half the amendment.

I don't leave anything out. The people are the militia. There is no ambiguity except for those who seek to corrupt the meaning.

Corrupt the meaning? lol. You say only half the amendment is valid and want to leave out the rest. A bunch of people owning firearms does not constitute a militia. Okay a militia, but not a "well regulated" one. I say this as a former Army unit armorer.

Being a former army anything apparently didn't increase your reading comprehension. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.