(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:  

(06-12-2022 03:30 PM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 03:15 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Certainly protecting schools like courthouses or Congressional buildings would be helpful, but there's no way we could afford to do that even with massive tax increases, let alone filling all those new school security jobs. According to Google there are 687 courthouses in the US, add 50 state capitols, Congressional buildings, etc. and you're probably looking at less than 2,000 buildings that need to be protected the way those buildings are.

There are 130,930 K-12 schools in the US. Even IF we hardened the schools, madmen will just shift their attacks to the remaining soft targets like churches (estimated 350,000) and retail stores (over 1 million).

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.

Shall not be infringed. It's hard because it isn't supposed to be easy to change the Constitution. We already know you leftists hate the Constitution so you just try to circumvent it.

It's particularly telling that you celebrate "doing something". That's the standard mantra of the left. Just do something regardless of whether it will have any effect on the problem you are supposedly addressing.

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.

(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.

(06-12-2022 12:41 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 12:36 PM)BlazinBham Wrote:  All the talk is about guns and ZERO about the children.

That's because we don't have a children problem, we have a gun violence problem.

Congrats!

You’ve outdone yourself for your most stupid asss post yet.

Go take a lap and try again.
Turrible

(06-12-2022 12:41 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 12:36 PM)BlazinBham Wrote:  All the talk is about guns and ZERO about the children.

That's because we don't have a children problem, we have a gun violence problem.

So now guns = violence? I think you have been brainwashed by the same folks who would have you castrated on a moments notice. There is NO GUN VIOLENCE only PEOPLE VIOLENCE. Guns don't jump up and attack like sharks with blood in the water.

Do you really believe these politicians give a Rat's azz about these kids? It's all about power over us period. Democrats = Authoritarian. Brainwashed just have been blinded by their ignorance that big brother is going to take care of me. Know your place serfs.

Hillary is royalty and you are deplorable. The same Democrat underlings will starve and be homeless and still believe the lies.

(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.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

19,384 gun deaths in US in 2020

393,000,000 estimated guns in the US

.00493% success rate by the inanimate gun

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(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.

(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:  

(06-12-2022 03:30 PM)appst89 Wrote:  Shall not be infringed. It's hard because it isn't supposed to be easy to change the Constitution. We already know you leftists hate the Constitution so you just try to circumvent it.

It's particularly telling that you celebrate "doing something". That's the standard mantra of the left. Just do something regardless of whether it will have any effect on the problem you are supposedly addressing.

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.

(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.

(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.

Just say it already goofball.

Stop beating around the bush.

Scared

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(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.

Define 'regulated' using a dictionary from the 1770's.

Sent from my SM-A516U using Tapatalk

(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.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

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

(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:  

(06-12-2022 03:30 PM)appst89 Wrote:  Shall not be infringed. It's hard because it isn't supposed to be easy to change the Constitution. We already know you leftists hate the Constitution so you just try to circumvent it.

It's particularly telling that you celebrate "doing something". That's the standard mantra of the left. Just do something regardless of whether it will have any effect on the problem you are supposedly addressing.

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.

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.

(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.

Yeah, not what I said.

(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:  

(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.

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

Why don't leftists just come out and say it instead dancing around like a bunch of assmonkeys?

Cowards

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

(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:  

(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.

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.

(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:  

(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?

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?

(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:  

(06-12-2022 05:38 PM)appst89 Wrote:  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.

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.