Great news! Over 20 dead in Orlando Night Club!

[dismal]

The US would be safer with Venezuela's gun control laws, because unlike them, we don't have a total absence of law enforcement or criminal justice system (less than 2% of crimes in Venezuela are even prosecuted) or murderous crime lords in complete control of the government. Their top "elected" officials, police officers, military, and Supreme Court justices are all involved with drug trafficking.

So, it's kinda like Chicago.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

People should indeed have a right to have 3 ounces of gunpowder and a musket to protect themselves or go hunting. What's the problem?

One must have armor piercing bullets to effectively engage the deer population. They are cunning, and you are blinded by the fact they are animals, as it minimizes (in your mind) their real threat to our loved ones on the road ways. They are constantly trying to hijack vehicles and use our instruments of transportation against us. You think they are merely running out in front of vehicles, but a closer, objective, reasonable, logical, and methodical empiracle study would show that they are actually broadsiding vehicles. Wonder why? The gunmen in the woods are having to shoot through these moving vehicles to score against these criminal deer.

My main fear are levee systems. For years anti-groundhog policies have been enforced to reduce groundhog burrowing in levees, which endangers the protected community. Decades of this policy is leading to evolution evolving a rather dangerous bullet resistant groundhog. We must be prepared when we start shooting these groundhogs, and the bullets from our inferior guns start bouncing off of them. AR-15's are our only hope and if the Government isn't willing to stock up on these weapons, we'll need to turn to the brave Americans who stockpiled these arms for the upcoming groundhog Armageddon!

 

[ronburgundy]

The US would be safer with Venezuela's gun control laws, because unlike them, we don't have a total absence of law enforcement or criminal justice system (less than 2% of crimes in Venezuela are even prosecuted) or murderous crime lords in complete control of the government. Their top "elected" officials, police officers, military, and Supreme Court justices are all involved with drug trafficking.

So, it's kinda like Chicago.

Cute, but no. It is far worse than Chicago. Chicago's cops may commit their own crimes, but government officials are deliberately enabling the majority of gun violence crimes, and its prosecution rate is far higher. Also, Chicago's current soaring gun violence follows an extreme laxing of the gun laws in 2013 where they repealed laws requiring gun registration and owner's permits, limits on gun's owned, and restrictions on possession outside of the home.

 

[RVonse]

Yes it would probably help. The little good it does is not worth trashing the 2nd amendment though.

Define militia.What was a militia in 1787?What does it mean in 2016?

Back in 1787 a 1 shot musket would be enough to defend oneself against a tyrannical government. But today....it probably really would take a bazooka in order to defend oneself against one of Obama's drones.

The 2nd amendment never was about deer hunting, yet somehow everyone posting this thread....even the NRA goes down this wrong path. The 2nd amendment is about protecting oneself against a tyrannical government, such as a government like nazi germany taking down the Jewish population. Had those Jews been armed liked the typical American in Texas, that tyranny would not have happened 60 years ago.

And that is what the 2nd amendment is about.

I actually don't own any guns. But I surely don't support an assault ban on weapons either.... even if it slows down crazy people from killing other people (which is a good thing). Its not worth trashing the 2nd amendment. I am convinced Killary Terminator is very sick in the head. See this video for the proof here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U Such a person with bad wiring in their head and becoming our next president... it is possible that mental state could start droning people in this country. In which case, I will be very glad my fellow citizens still have some weapons to give her some pause to such effects. The 2nd amendment needs to be left alone.

 

[Malintent]

Note that since 9/11 nobody has tried to actually seize an airplane--it was a one-shot tactic.

Perhaps because it was made more difficult to seize an airplane I agree that most of the security measure the public sees is just theater; but the reality is that it was a "one-shot tactic" because WE MADE IT FUCKING TOO HARD TO SEIZE AIRPLANES.

Let's do the same with guns.

Even the terrorists in their recruitment videos talk about our lax gun laws That should tell you something

How many people want to steal airplanes that you know of?
How many people want to legally buy and properly maintain guns?

Do you see the difference? You cannot legislate away what the populous demands. You may not LIKE guns... but more people in this country do than you apparently can imagine. I personally can't imagine how the sweet potato is allowed to be sold and consumed.. they are gut-wrenchingly disgusting. They should be outlawed so no one can have them, so I don't have to be affected by them.

 

[bigfield]

Perhaps because it was made more difficult to seize an airplane I agree that most of the security measure the public sees is just theater; but the reality is that it was a "one-shot tactic" because WE MADE IT FUCKING TOO HARD TO SEIZE AIRPLANES.

Let's do the same with guns.

Even the terrorists in their recruitment videos talk about our lax gun laws That should tell you something

How many people want to steal airplanes that you know of?
How many people want to legally buy and properly maintain guns?

Do you see the difference? You cannot legislate away what the populous demands. You may not LIKE guns... but more people in this country do than you apparently can imagine. I personally can't imagine how the sweet potato is allowed to be sold and consumed.. they are gut-wrenchingly disgusting. They should be outlawed so no one can have them, so I don't have to be affected by them.

When thousands of people are killed by sweet potatoes, we'll be sure to take your demand seriously.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Perhaps because it was made more difficult to seize an airplane I agree that most of the security measure the public sees is just theater; but the reality is that it was a "one-shot tactic" because WE MADE IT FUCKING TOO HARD TO SEIZE AIRPLANES.

Let's do the same with guns.

Even the terrorists in their recruitment videos talk about our lax gun laws That should tell you something

How many people want to steal airplanes that you know of?
How many people want to legally buy and properly maintain guns?

Do you see the difference? You cannot legislate away what the populous demands. You may not LIKE guns... but more people in this country do than you apparently can imagine. I personally can't imagine how the sweet potato is allowed to be sold and consumed.. they are gut-wrenchingly disgusting. They should be outlawed so no one can have them, so I don't have to be affected by them.

You can't possibly see a parallel between weapons used in the massacre and sweet potatoes.

 

[laughing dog]

How many people want to steal airplanes that you know of?
How many people want to legally buy and properly maintain guns?

Do you see the difference? You cannot legislate away what the populous demands. You may not LIKE guns... but more people in this country do than you apparently can imagine. I personally can't imagine how the sweet potato is allowed to be sold and consumed.. they are gut-wrenchingly disgusting. They should be outlawed so no one can have them, so I don't have to be affected by them.

Can you show that people are using sweet potatoes to murder other people at the same rate as assault weapon murders? If you can, please do. If you cannot, please stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Playball40]

Could show you just as many homophobic tweets from "Christians" ya know.

If you're so insistent that they exist, you find them. Giddy up!

There was a youtube video up thread. And frankly, I have neither the time nor the inclination to search for such filth/rubbish.

 

[Playball40]

Define militia.What was a militia in 1787?What does it mean in 2016?

Back in 1787 a 1 shot musket would be enough to defend oneself against a tyrannical government. But today....it probably really would take a bazooka in order to defend oneself against one of Obama's drones.

The 2nd amendment never was about deer hunting, yet somehow everyone posting this thread....even the NRA goes down this wrong path. The 2nd amendment is about protecting oneself against a tyrannical government, such as a government like nazi germany taking down the Jewish population. Had those Jews been armed liked the typical American in Texas, that tyranny would not have happened 60 years ago. And that is what the 2nd amendment is about.

I actually don't own any guns. But I surely don't support an assault ban on weapons either.... even if it slows down crazy people from killing other people (which is a good thing). Its not worth trashing the 2nd amendment. I am convinced Killary Terminator is very sick in the head. See this video for the proof here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U Such a person with bad wiring in their head and becoming our next president... it is possible that mental state could start droning people in this country. In which case, I will be very glad my fellow citizens still have some weapons to give her some pause to such effects. The 2nd amendment needs to be left alone.

Bullshit

 

[Playball40]

Perhaps because it was made more difficult to seize an airplane I agree that most of the security measure the public sees is just theater; but the reality is that it was a "one-shot tactic" because WE MADE IT FUCKING TOO HARD TO SEIZE AIRPLANES.

Let's do the same with guns.

Even the terrorists in their recruitment videos talk about our lax gun laws That should tell you something

How many people want to steal airplanes that you know of?
How many people want to legally buy and properly maintain guns?

Do you see the difference? You cannot legislate away what the populous demands. You may not LIKE guns... but more people in this country do than you apparently can imagine. I personally can't imagine how the sweet potato is allowed to be sold and consumed.. they are gut-wrenchingly disgusting. They should be outlawed so no one can have them, so I don't have to be affected by them.

How are you affected by other people consuming sweet potatoes? Oh yeah, you're not. However, tens of thousands of innocent people are affected by guns in this country. So, yeah, your rights can be limited to protect MY LIFE.

 

[Malintent]

How many people want to steal airplanes that you know of?
How many people want to legally buy and properly maintain guns?

Do you see the difference? You cannot legislate away what the populous demands. You may not LIKE guns... but more people in this country do than you apparently can imagine. I personally can't imagine how the sweet potato is allowed to be sold and consumed.. they are gut-wrenchingly disgusting. They should be outlawed so no one can have them, so I don't have to be affected by them.

When thousands of people are killed by sweet potatoes, we'll be sure to take your demand seriously.

More people die every year from eating a poor diet than by legally acquired guns. If death toll is the metric by which we enact prohibition, then there are many things we should be more concerned with.

Heart disease is the #1 killer in this country, which includes many specific disorders, the vast majority of which relates to diet. By your argument, we should first be banning fast food before guns.

Second, is Cancer. The #2 killer in this country.. paired with the #3 killer, Lower Respiratory disease, it seems cigarettes should be the next thing to ban, after fast food, and FAR, FAR before guns...
the #4 killer (is it guns, yet? No.) is "unintentional injuries"... perhaps guns play in here. accidents happen. The vast majority occur in cars. Once we are done BANNING CARS, we can see what accidents are left over. Currently, there is one fatal vehicular accident every 60 seconds.

Where are "civilian owned guns" in the list? They are not even in the top 10.

You guys have a shitload of banning to do before we should be ready to start talking about gun prohibition.

 

[Malintent]

How many people want to steal airplanes that you know of?
How many people want to legally buy and properly maintain guns?

Do you see the difference? You cannot legislate away what the populous demands. You may not LIKE guns... but more people in this country do than you apparently can imagine. I personally can't imagine how the sweet potato is allowed to be sold and consumed.. they are gut-wrenchingly disgusting. They should be outlawed so no one can have them, so I don't have to be affected by them.

How are you affected by other people consuming sweet potatoes? Oh yeah, you're not. However, tens of thousands of innocent people are affected by guns in this country. So, yeah, your rights can be limited to protect MY LIFE.

The smell... the horrible horrible smell. denatured carotene = baby vomit.

First ban vehicles. People operating cars kills FAR more people than people operating guns.

 

[dismal]

Where are "civilian owned guns" in the list? They are not even in the top 10.

And assault rifles got to be a tiny portion of gun homicides.

 

[Playball40]

How are you affected by other people consuming sweet potatoes? Oh yeah, you're not. However, tens of thousands of innocent people are affected by guns in this country. So, yeah, your rights can be limited to protect MY LIFE.

The smell... the horrible horrible smell. denatured carotene = baby vomit.

First ban vehicles. People operating cars kills FAR more people than people operating guns.

Hmmm, were cars created to kill people? The most amount of people in the shortest amount of time? Yeah, no. Try again.

 

[Playball40]

When thousands of people are killed by sweet potatoes, we'll be sure to take your demand seriously.

More people die every year from eating a poor diet than by legally acquired guns. If death toll is the metric by which we enact prohibition, then there are many things we should be more concerned with.

Heart disease is the #1 killer in this country, which includes many specific disorders, the vast majority of which relates to diet. By your argument, we should first be banning fast food before guns.

Second, is Cancer. The #2 killer in this country.. paired with the #3 killer, Lower Respiratory disease, it seems cigarettes should be the next thing to ban, after fast food, and FAR, FAR before guns...
the #4 killer (is it guns, yet? No.) is "unintentional injuries"... perhaps guns play in here. accidents happen. The vast majority occur in cars. Once we are done BANNING CARS, we can see what accidents are left over. Currently, there is one fatal vehicular accident every 60 seconds.

Where are "civilian owned guns" in the list? They are not even in the top 10.

You guys have a shitload of banning to do before we should be ready to start talking about gun prohibition.

Why the fuck are you NOT concerned with mitigating deaths that we can fucking mitigate? Kids get hurt on bikes so we added helmet laws? Does it prevent all bike injury? NO, BUT IT REDUCES THEM. People die in cars so we add seatbelt laws. Do seatbelts prevent car deaths? NO BUT IT REDUCES THEM. Kids are dying playing with guns? ..........crickets............... Innocent people are dying in mass shootings. Common denominator, rapid fire weaponry. ................crickets.................

Heart disease and cancer are medical conditions, often the result of genetics. So, not seeing a comparison in any way. However, there IS a full government agency out there to make sure products available to the public do no cause cancer, heart disease. I'm all for a federal agency that approves the design of weapons to limit their firing capacity, that requires licenses and insurance to own, that holds gun owners responsible for 'accidents' (you know, like they do with cars), that has a state/national database (you know like with driving cars). Ok, I'm for it.

 

[ronburgundy]

Perhaps because it was made more difficult to seize an airplane I agree that most of the security measure the public sees is just theater; but the reality is that it was a "one-shot tactic" because WE MADE IT FUCKING TOO HARD TO SEIZE AIRPLANES.

Let's do the same with guns.

Even the terrorists in their recruitment videos talk about our lax gun laws That should tell you something

How many people want to steal airplanes that you know of?

Um, if it weren't illegal, there wold be millions of people taking airplanes and everything else owned by everyone else. According to your philosophy, all that taking should be legal, because its popular.

How many people want to legally buy and properly maintain guns?

How many people who claim to want to legally buy and maintain guns do not actually do this and resell their guns to criminals? Tons. Those "legal gun buyers" are the source of the majority of guns used in crimes.

Do you see the difference? You cannot legislate away what the populous demands.

How many company's would like to increase their profits by dumping poisonous waste into waterways and the air? Most of them. Should we eliminate all regulations on this behavior just because its popular among many?

There are also plenty of gun nutters that would love to own a nuclear mis, just in case. So, I guess we should let them. Also, the popularity of owning bombs is only lower because it has been illegal for so long. As with assault weapons and stockpiles of guns generally, the desire for bombs is not some inherent drive most people have (unlike the desire to use drugs). The desire for such dangerous weapons is mostly and artifact of growing up around them and a childish reaction to the fear of others taking them away. Raise people with bombs all around and they would feel like they do about guns. Reduce the prevalence of such guns people grow up around and the desire for them, and motive to obtain them illegally, will fade. A desire for a one or two hunting or home protection guns may persist, but not for access to as unlimited guns of whatever type that does now among the rabid nutters.


How many men would like to have sex with Sophia Vergara, even if she is not willing? Countless. Should we allow rape of particular women, just because they are widely desired?

I personally can't imagine how the sweet potato is allowed to be sold and consumed.. they are gut-wrenchingly disgusting. They should be outlawed so no one can have them, so I don't have to be affected by them.

The popularity of an action never has nor should be a rational basis for determining legislation. Its inherent danger to public safety is the rational basis. Unlike sweet potatoes, all non-hunting guns are expressly designed for the sole function of killing people as quickly as possible, with assault rifles for killing large groups of people indiscriminately as quickly as possible. They latter are designed for acts that are always criminal outside of an official military engagement (and even illegal then sometimes), and other non-hunting guns for acts that are criminal in most plausible circumstances, with the exception being circumstances of an armed assailant that is most often armed because of legal guns in the first place.

It is not a matter of not liking something, but a matter of something infringing upon other people's most basic right to live, a right far more important than the right to possess anything you want, no matter its danger to others, especially when that objects main function is to deprive others of their right to live.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When thousands of people are killed by sweet potatoes, we'll be sure to take your demand seriously.

More people die every year from eating a poor diet than by legally acquired guns. If death toll is the metric by which we enact prohibition, then there are many things we should be more concerned with.

Heart disease is the #1 killer in this country, which includes many specific disorders, the vast majority of which relates to diet. By your argument, we should first be banning fast food before guns.

Second, is Cancer. The #2 killer in this country.. paired with the #3 killer, Lower Respiratory disease, it seems cigarettes should be the next thing to ban, after fast food, and FAR, FAR before guns...
the #4 killer (is it guns, yet? No.) is "unintentional injuries"... perhaps guns play in here. accidents happen. The vast majority occur in cars. Once we are done BANNING CARS, we can see what accidents are left over. Currently, there is one fatal vehicular accident every 60 seconds.

Where are "civilian owned guns" in the list? They are not even in the top 10.

You guys have a shitload of banning to do before we should be ready to start talking about gun prohibition.

Fine, let's ban french fries, cars, and fucking guns then. Are you happy now?!

 

[ronburgundy]

Where are "civilian owned guns" in the list? They are not even in the top 10.

They are #1.

Most guns used in crimes are officially "owned" by legal gun buyers, who buy them as proxies and turn around and resell them to others with nefarious intentions. Restricting legal gun purchases (not banning, but number and type limits, combined with annual proof of possession) is the only plausible way to reduce the flow of guns into the hands of people who intend to use them in crimes.

And assault rifles got to be a tiny portion of gun homicides.

Their use is mass killings ranks higher than their use in any legitimate activity, outside of people legally practicing to kill dozens of people with them.
It isn't just an issue of raw frequency of use for crime, but rather how much they enable various crimes relative to how much they enable legit legal uses not more easily served by other guns. Other than practicing to commit a criminal act, there is no safe and legal use of such guns that is not better served by other guns. The only act that such guns are better than other guns (mowing down groups of people) is pretty much the most criminal and immoral act one can engage in, in any context outside of selective military combat.

Banning such guns will reduce mass killings like the one in Orlando, in which one or two people are able to kill dozens before being taken down or people have a chance to flee. But such bans will barely put a notable dent in gun homicides more generally. But given that no right is taken away by such a ban and no non-criminal activity is hampered by such a ban, no hunting is hampered, and no legal self-defense is hampered, then there is a reason to ban them and zero real harm by doing so.
As for reducing gun crime in general, the solution lies in cutting off the supply of guns actually used in most crimes, and that source is the secondary market of legal gun sales, which requires major restrictions on number of purchases, registration of every gun and regular proof of possession (with lifetime ownership bans for first offense violations). There is no legit legal gun owner who approaches the reality of gun crime rationally that would object to that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Afghanistan mess was caused by the Soviet invasion.

Nope, Afghanistan mess was caused by US messing up soviet "invasion" by supporting fucking terrorists. The whole idea as Brzezinski gleefully admitted was to draw soviets in and then release islamic terrorists freedom fighters on them. It worked great, until these freedom fighters won and then eventually repay US with 9-11.

The resistance existed anyway. We just made it more effective by giving them the missiles to bring down Soviet aircraft.

And note what you're saying--right or wrong doesn't matter, if the Soviets did it then it's a good thing.

How much does Moscow pay you to say such things?