RE: Nobody wants to take your guns.

RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 12:51:54 PM)
Strange the republicans in congress are doing all of the above, not dems, not libs, not lefties. MMnever said all. There you go again putting out your stupid assumptions without facts.

Musicmystery -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 12:52:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic FR. As we are into the "joke" section of the thread, I thought you might find this amusing [image]http://www.lucylasticslair.com/colllar/ohwhatajoke.jpg[/image] Just how many people DID ole Chuck kill while he was a gun owner? That's why I don't mind Chuck having one. Look, it's common knowledge, even NRA acknowledged history, that the NRA took a sharp turn in 1977, come to be known as "The Cincinnati Revolution" -- the name of which should clarify that this was NOT the historical NRA anymore. In fact, Karl Frederick, NRA President in 1934, during congressional NFA hearings (the National Firearms Act of 1934 - NFA - became the first federal gun-control law passed in the U.S.) testified "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses." The NRA supported the NFA along with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which together created a system to federally license gun dealers and established restrictions on particular categories and classes of firearms. They didn't dance and whine and shout about the 2nd Amendment -- they understood the need for sensible laws and regulations that in fact help protect that right for all citizens (vs. the criminals and nutcases). After 1977, the organization expanded its membership by focusing heavily on political issues and forming coalitions with conservative politicians, most of them Republicans. Hence the "conservative" label associated with today's NRA nuttiness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Contemporary_history

bounty44 -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 12:59:55 PM)
two of my very favorites, Andrew klavan, and bill whittle, in response to Oregon, and the liberal response to oregon... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LsnBZhCYJU http://www.pjtv.com/s/GMZTKNBS

lovmuffin -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 1:54:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery School shooters don't single out victims by political affiliation. no, in reference to "schools"---they just single out victims (in places) they know cannot defend themselves.... places run, or influenced by, a particular political affiliation. theres nothing new in what I just said, so one wonders why it has to keep being repeated. See, in this country, school boards run schools, not "a particular political affiliation," and there's no evidence (that's the stuff reasonable people use to support their claims instead of just making up shit) to suggest anyone targeted victims because the place was, to their minds, "run, or influenced by, a particular political affiliation." You've been carrying water for the right so long that you see political division everywhere you go. You probably buy foods only produced in red states, so you don't get those liberal vibes the government hides in the leftist foods. You mean there's no evidence such as this ?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJFC1qFCgyA Mmm Mmm Mmm

lovmuffin -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 2:01:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Music mystery They (the NRA) didn't dance and whine and shout about the 2nd Amendment -- they understood the need for sensible laws and regulations that in fact help protect that right for all citizens (vs. the criminals and nutcases). There isn't much of anything sensible in any of the current liberal proposed legislation.

Musicmystery -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 3:26:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery School shooters don't single out victims by political affiliation. no, in reference to "schools"---they just single out victims (in places) they know cannot defend themselves.... places run, or influenced by, a particular political affiliation. theres nothing new in what I just said, so one wonders why it has to keep being repeated. See, in this country, school boards run schools, not "a particular political affiliation," and there's no evidence (that's the stuff reasonable people use to support their claims instead of just making up shit) to suggest anyone targeted victims because the place was, to their minds, "run, or influenced by, a particular political affiliation." You've been carrying water for the right so long that you see political division everywhere you go. You probably buy foods only produced in red states, so you don't get those liberal vibes the government hides in the leftist foods. You mean there's no evidence such as this ?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJFC1qFCgyA Mmm Mmm Mmm And you think that's why we have school shootings? You've been drinking the gun oil again.

bounty44 -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 3:28:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery School shooters don't single out victims by political affiliation. no, in reference to "schools"---they just single out victims (in places) they know cannot defend themselves.... places run, or influenced by, a particular political affiliation. theres nothing new in what I just said, so one wonders why it has to keep being repeated. See, in this country, school boards run schools, not "a particular political affiliation," and there's no evidence (that's the stuff reasonable people use to support their claims instead of just making up shit) to suggest anyone targeted victims because the place was, to their minds, "run, or influenced by, a particular political affiliation." You've been carrying water for the right so long that you see political division everywhere you go. You probably buy foods only produced in red states, so you don't get those liberal vibes the government hides in the leftist foods. by "run by/influenced by" brainiac, im not talking about who runs the particular local school. im talking about the broader influence under which a school finds itself having to be run. a "gun free zone" concerning a school is a federal law, you know, the kind created by politicians, not school boards. and if you think it doesn't enter into the minds of mass shooters that they are targeting a place where they will face no immediate deadly opposition...well, you are intellectually challenged to say the least. your spin notwithstanding. as to "carrying water"---sorry Einstein, not only have you used the phrase wrongly in this instance, you don't know a thing about me such that you can even guess at that. and as to "seeing political division" everywhere---again, you are essentially clueless about me such that you can say that, but please, continue to blindly speculate and look like a doofus. the converse of that is---you might be so socially/politically naïve as to suppose that one view or another doesnt predominate in almost all instances. however, in this particular issue, its pretty safe to say that most liberals are all for keeping schools as gun free zones (aka as shooting galleries for crazies) whereas most conservatives, might be for allowing people, by law, to be armed at them. there is your "political affiliation." of course, im so used to carrying water I might be making that "division" completely up.

Musicmystery -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 3:31:50 PM)
Well, sorry, but it's used precisely, and as your actions here show, accurately. ~ Einstein Now, if you're done insulting everyone not kissing your ass, how about some realistic solutions? Metal detectors would be a good start. Would catch knives too. Background checks at gun shows seems reasonable. So is mom locking her guns and securing the key.

lovmuffin -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 4:33:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery School shooters don't single out victims by political affiliation. no, in reference to "schools"---they just single out victims (in places) they know cannot defend themselves.... places run, or influenced by, a particular political affiliation. theres nothing new in what I just said, so one wonders why it has to keep being repeated. See, in this country, school boards run schools, not "a particular political affiliation," and there's no evidence (that's the stuff reasonable people use to support their claims instead of just making up shit) to suggest anyone targeted victims because the place was, to their minds, "run, or influenced by, a particular political affiliation." You've been carrying water for the right so long that you see political division everywhere you go. You probably buy foods only produced in red states, so you don't get those liberal vibes the government hides in the leftist foods. You mean there's no evidence such as this ?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJFC1qFCgyA Mmm Mmm Mmm And you think that's why we have school shootings? You've been drinking the gun oil again. It's certainly part of the mind set that feeds the liberal logic of "gun free zones" and it speaks directly to your assertion that "school boards run schools, not "a particular political affiliation,"

lovmuffin -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 4:38:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, sorry, but it's used precisely, and as your actions here show, accurately. ~ Einstein Now, if you're done insulting everyone not kissing your ass, how about some realistic solutions? Metal detectors would be a good start. Would catch knives too. Background checks at gun shows seems reasonable. So is mom locking her guns and securing the key. We have background checks at gun shows. The liberal lie that we don't is simply designed to get everyone all fired up.

ifmaz -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 5:52:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery ... Metal detectors would be a good start. Would catch knives too. Background checks at gun shows seems reasonable. So is mom locking her guns and securing the key. Metal detectors at a school might be a good start; many inner-city schools already have them. I'd like to see some data indicating a reduction in crime after instituting a metal detector. For the cases where knives or other weapons make it past the metal detector, an armed guard could de-escalate a mass stabbing or shooting quicker than the 8+ minute response time of the police. Background checks at gun shows are already implemented if the seller is a business (ie: FFL holder), and NICS is (currently) only open to FFL holders. Requiring private sellers to have an FFL could result in tax implications, not to mention an abundance of government regulations (ie: keeping the ATF-4473 paperwork for 20 years after the sale). Should a widow be forced to obtain an FFL to sell the spouse's firearm collection, or should a parent be required to obtain an FFL in order to pass a rifle down to their kid? A potentially better solution would be to open NICS up for public consumption. Public-NICS would return a binary response and an identifier in case additional follow-up is required. No reason for a decline would be given. I can think of many ways this could fail, however, and it relies on private sellers doing something that has traditionally been viewed as government overreach. This could also lead to a registry of firearms and possible law enforcement intervention: a citizen sold an AR15 lower receiver to a law-abiding person but how did the seller initially acquire the lower? I also have a sinking feeling any well-publicized failure in Public-NICS would lead to more draconian laws being put into effect. Public-NICS would also only be as good as the data going into it and NICS is severely underfunded today. Without raising taxes, or adding a bogus tax to firearms which would be an immediate non-starter, where does the funding for this overhaul come from? Depending on implementation, I'd support a Public-NICS-style system if the NFA laws requiring tax stamps for suppressors and short-barreled rifles were eliminated.

joether -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 7:00:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, sorry, but it's used precisely, and as your actions here show, accurately. ~ Einstein Now, if you're done insulting everyone not kissing your ass, how about some realistic solutions? Metal detectors would be a good start. Would catch knives too. Background checks at gun shows seems reasonable. So is mom locking her guns and securing the key. We have background checks at gun shows. The liberal lie that we don't is simply designed to get everyone all fired up. Cite sources of information.

ifmaz -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 7:19:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, sorry, but it's used precisely, and as your actions here show, accurately. ~ Einstein Now, if you're done insulting everyone not kissing your ass, how about some realistic solutions? Metal detectors would be a good start. Would catch knives too. Background checks at gun shows seems reasonable. So is mom locking her guns and securing the key. We have background checks at gun shows. The liberal lie that we don't is simply designed to get everyone all fired up. Cite sources of information. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/federal-firearms-licensees/ffl-manual

Kirata -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 7:40:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin We have background checks at gun shows. The liberal lie that we don't is simply designed to get everyone all fired up. Cite sources of information. Licensed gun dealers selling guns at a gun show are under the same obligation to run background checks as they would be selling anywhere else. Private sales and trades aren't really a gun show issue, because they can occur anywhere. The idea behind universal background checks is to require background checks for ALL firearms transfers, even between husband and wife or father and son. An alternate proposal would make engaging in private transfers at gun shows illegal. More details here. K.

BamaD -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 7:45:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, sorry, but it's used precisely, and as your actions here show, accurately. ~ Einstein Now, if you're done insulting everyone not kissing your ass, how about some realistic solutions? Metal detectors would be a good start. Would catch knives too. Background checks at gun shows seems reasonable. So is mom locking her guns and securing the key. We have background checks at gun shows. The liberal lie that we don't is simply designed to get everyone all fired up. Cite sources of information. How about the law? Any sale by a ffl holder, whether it is made from his store, a gun show, or out of the back of his pickup, must have a background check. Again a research wizard like you should know this. Sales between individuals are covered by the laws of the state they are in.

BamaD -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 8:49:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, sorry, but it's used precisely, and as your actions here show, accurately. ~ Einstein Now, if you're done insulting everyone not kissing your ass, how about some realistic solutions? Metal detectors would be a good start. Would catch knives too. Background checks at gun shows seems reasonable. So is mom locking her guns and securing the key. We have background checks at gun shows. The liberal lie that we don't is simply designed to get everyone all fired up. Cite sources of information. Questions like this indicate that you do not research the subject, just the sites where you know they will agree with you, and you claim that others won't look at the other side.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 9:14:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, sorry, but it's used precisely, and as your actions here show, accurately. ~ Einstein Now, if you're done insulting everyone not kissing your ass, how about some realistic solutions? Metal detectors would be a good start. Would catch knives too. Background checks at gun shows seems reasonable. So is mom locking her guns and securing the key. We have background checks at gun shows. The liberal lie that we don't is simply designed to get everyone all fired up. Cite sources of information. Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law clearly defined private sellers as anyone who sold no more than four firearms per year. But the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act lifted that restriction and loosely defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood. Some states have opted to go further than federal law by requiring background checks at gun shows for any gun transaction, federal license or not. Five states, most recently Colorado (my own state) and Connecticut, mandate universal background checks, an even more stringent standard that imposes background checks on almost all gun purchases, including over the Internet. Even in states that do not require background checks of private vendors, the venue hosting the event may require it as a matter of policy. In other cases, private vendors may opt to have a third-party licensed dealer run a background check even though it may not be required by law. http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

joether -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/24/2015 11:15:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Well, sorry, but it's used precisely, and as your actions here show, accurately. ~ Einstein Now, if you're done insulting everyone not kissing your ass, how about some realistic solutions? Metal detectors would be a good start. Would catch knives too. Background checks at gun shows seems reasonable. So is mom locking her guns and securing the key. We have background checks at gun shows. The liberal lie that we don't is simply designed to get everyone all fired up. Cite sources of information. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/federal-firearms-licensees/ffl-manual Someone goes to a gun show. They easily pass the background checks. What stops them from selling the guns behind closed doors and off the record? Yes, authorized dealers and scrupulous people with firearms is not what pisses the liberals off. Its the unscrupulous types we do not like. And we are often at a lost when conservatives turn a blind eye to the practice. This sort of shit undermines people's confidence in firearm owners. Particularly right after a shooting. Be it local or on the national stage. So we have a firearm that travels: Manufacture --> Dealer --> Gun Show Buyer --> Shady Trade to Unscrupulous Person --> Shady Trade to 'Criminal Element' --> Used in Crime. Or, for those first time offenders with no criminal record: Manufacture --> Dealer --> Gun Show Buyer --> Used in Crime. In the first case the chain fails because there are no regulations that prohibit the process once the Unscrupulous Person obtains the firearm. A fix for this might be assigning an insurance policy to firearms. That creates a record of the firearm being with that particular owner. If they gun 'disappears' and later arrives at the scene of a crime, we can back track to the last known authorized person to have it. Are you going to trust that person, whom states this is their 7th gun in three years to be stolen? If the guns are stolen, I think its fair for the police to investigate further how the firearms are stored on the location. Ask why the owner never reported the guns stolen. Accept no bullshit. That's how you cut down on the unscrupulous population of individuals. Well, one of many ways... In the second issue, it comes down to the individual situation. This assumes non-self defense crimes. This could be due to a road rage event in which the owner used the gun to kill someone. A husband whom is very aggressive towards his wife (and all those strange bruises showing up). A manager with some hefty 'anger management issues'. These are the kind of individuals whom should not have access to a firearm. Sooner or later, they'll 'fly off the hand' and stop being 'honest and responsible' with their firearm. Therefore, we should require individuals to get a yearly physical and a bi-annual mental/emotional health screening (which could take a few weeks). This is to 'head off' potentially dangerous situations before they become nuclear. I would even add that if a one's spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend takes a restraining order out on the individual; that individual's firearms should be collected and given to the police for safe keeping. Until such time as the individual gets help from the medical profession to deal with their....viewpoints. So if you like your guns.....treat the lady with kindness, love, and friendship. The 1968 law has problems. We know this because of the many shootings going on in the nation. We know the laws are not handling the situation the nation now faces. We know there are powerful political groups trying every day to keep the CDC and other research organizations from producing studies on gun violence. We also know that these mass shootings seem to take place every 2-5 weeks. In between those times are scores of smaller level violence with firearms. From homicides to suicides. When one of these mass shootings takes place, most of are are not even phased by it anymore. How much of our humanity has not to be lost to not feel any sadness for the victims? Yet, after each such shooting, there exists more individuals that move over to the 'regulate 'em or ban 'em' side. The NRA and other such organizations have started experiencing a diminish level of power. As more people join the club of 'relatives of a firearm shooting', the gun lobby loses more ground. Eventually, there will be enough for 'critical mass' to take place. Laws will be issued that place restrictions and processes. No one will give a shit about the NRA and its flunkies. Then we'll see less mass shootings and acts of violence with firearms; wondering why we didn't do this sooner....

ifmaz -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/25/2015 12:49:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Someone goes to a gun show. They easily pass the background checks. What stops them from selling the guns behind closed doors and off the record? How do "sensible background checks" decrease the likelihood of someone doing exactly as you mentioned? What stops anyone from doing anything illegal? For instance, pretty much everyone speeds on highways even though speed limits are clearly marked. Which of the following would likely result in more people following posted speed limits: the banning of automobiles, additional government requirements needed to buy or drive an automobile (ie a yearly driving test), additional insurance for drivers of automobiles, additional laws detailing what speeding and speed limits are, additional laws declaring speeding is illegal, harsher punishments for speeding, or enforcing posted speed limits? quote: ORIGINAL: joether Yes, authorized dealers and scrupulous people with firearms is not what pisses the liberals off. Its the unscrupulous types we do not like. And we are often at a lost when conservatives turn a blind eye to the practice. This sort of shit undermines people's confidence in firearm owners. Particularly right after a shooting. Be it local or on the national stage. So we have a firearm that travels: Manufacture --> Dealer --> Gun Show Buyer --> Shady Trade to Unscrupulous Person --> Shady Trade to 'Criminal Element' --> Used in Crime. Or, for those first time offenders with no criminal record: Manufacture --> Dealer --> Gun Show Buyer --> Used in Crime. In the first case the chain fails because there are no regulations that prohibit the process once the Unscrupulous Person obtains the firearm. A fix for this might be assigning an insurance policy to firearms. That creates a record of the firearm being with that particular owner. If they gun 'disappears' and later arrives at the scene of a crime, we can back track to the last known authorized person to have it. Are you going to trust that person, whom states this is their 7th gun in three years to be stolen? Before we debate hypothetical situations and play the ever-popular "what if" game, please cite some cases wherein a gun show seller sold a firearm to an "unscrupulous" person which was then used in a crime. Please cite cases wherein a firearm registry, which seems to be what you are advocating, did not lead to confiscation. Please also cite cases wherein a firearm owner habitually reported firearms stolen and those firearms were used in crimes. Finally, please cite cases in which criminals followed laws. quote: ORIGINAL: joether If the guns are stolen, I think its fair for the police to investigate further how the firearms are stored on the location. Ask why the owner never reported the guns stolen. Accept no bullshit. That's how you cut down on the unscrupulous population of individuals. Well, one of many ways... Please cite some cases wherein a firearm owner did not report their firearms stolen and those firearms were used in crimes. Please also cite some cases wherein law enforcement "accepted bullshit" when a firearm owner reported firearms stolen. quote: ORIGINAL: joether In the second issue, it comes down to the individual situation. This assumes non-self defense crimes. This could be due to a road rage event in which the owner used the gun to kill someone. A husband whom is very aggressive towards his wife (and all those strange bruises showing up). A manager with some hefty 'anger management issues'. These are the kind of individuals whom should not have access to a firearm. Sooner or later, they'll 'fly off the hand' and stop being 'honest and responsible' with their firearm. Therefore, we should require individuals to get a yearly physical and a bi-annual mental/emotional health screening (which could take a few weeks). This is to 'head off' potentially dangerous situations before they become nuclear. With regards to domestic violence, please consult the ATF-4473 form (PDF), specifically question 11i. Could these "anger management" people, who have committed no crime previously, drive their vehicle into a group of children or perform any other act of violence without the use of a firearm? Or are you advocating mandatory mental/emotional health screening for everyone? Furthermore, should this "bi-annual mental/emotional health" screening apply to all rights in the Bill of Rights or just the one you take issue with? How do you reconcile a mandatory mental/emotional health screening, which "may take a few weeks", with someone wishing to protect themselves in a domestic violence situation (ie: Carol Bowne)? quote: ORIGINAL: joether I would even add that if a one's spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend takes a restraining order out on the individual; that individual's firearms should be collected and given to the police for safe keeping. Until such time as the individual gets help from the medical profession to deal with their....viewpoints. So if you like your guns.....treat the lady with kindness, love, and friendship. What is to stop a jilted ex from getting a restraining order against an individual just to make their lives difficult? Divorce is a messy thing and hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Additionally, please cite some cases wherein a domestic violence situation escalated to firearm-related homicide and cases wherein a person with a domestic violence offense on their criminal record was able to legally acquire a firearm. quote: ORIGINAL: joether The 1968 law has problems. We know this because of the many shootings going on in the nation. We know the laws are not handling the situation the nation now faces. We know there are powerful political groups trying every day to keep the CDC and other research organizations from producing studies on gun violence. We also know that these mass shootings seem to take place every 2-5 weeks. In between those times are scores of smaller level violence with firearms. From homicides to suicides. When one of these mass shootings takes place, most of are are not even phased by it anymore. How much of our humanity has not to be lost to not feel any sadness for the victims? Why do you believe expressing one's rights somehow diminish the value of lives lost due to violence, regardless of the weapons used? Many firearm owners and pro-rights groups suggested placing armed guards at schools in order to stop school shootings yet these suggestions have been rejected, leading one to believe victims only serve as political pawns. As for suicides, do you believe one should/can not determine when and how one wishes to die (assuming that death does not injure others)? Do you believe the government can/should dictate how to live, die, and otherwise use one's own body? Additionally, you cite an unnamed "1968 law" which I assume refers to the Gun Control Act of 1968. However, I believe you actually meant to refer to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 which enhanced the 1968 GCA by requiring FFLs to perform a NICS check before selling a firearm. quote: ORIGINAL: joether Yet, after each such shooting, there exists more individuals that move over to the 'regulate 'em or ban 'em' side. The NRA and other such organizations have started experiencing a diminish level of power. As more people join the club of 'relatives of a firearm shooting', the gun lobby loses more ground. Eventually, there will be enough for 'critical mass' to take place. Laws will be issued that place restrictions and processes. No one will give a shit about the NRA and its flunkies. Then we'll see less mass shootings and acts of violence with firearms; wondering why we didn't do this sooner.... Please cite non-biased sources in which a majority of individuals believe additional gun control measures are necessary.

lovmuffin -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/25/2015 6:17:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Yet, after each such shooting, there exists more individuals that move over to the 'regulate 'em or ban 'em' side. The NRA and other such organizations have started experiencing a diminish level of power. As more people join the club of 'relatives of a firearm shooting', the gun lobby loses more ground. Eventually, there will be enough for 'critical mass' to take place. Laws will be issued that place restrictions and processes. No one will give a shit about the NRA and its flunkies. Then we'll see less mass shootings and acts of violence with firearms; wondering why we didn't do this sooner.... That's only in your wet dreams. It's strange that just the opposite is true. Weird, isn't it ?

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375