Reply With Quote
Yeah, it's a great system for authoritarians.One man unilaterally making this decision.
Cuck-uh-duh
Weird to see you on Reagan like that
Yeah, it's a great system for authoritarians.One man unilaterally making this decision.
Here's the thing. Both Conservatives and Liberals actually have the same opinion on the 2nd amendment, that it should allow weapon ownership up to certain point. No rational Conservative would agree that somebody should be able to walk onto a car lot and buy a fully armed M1 Abrams tank. They wouldn't want citizens owning stealth bombers, nuclear powered submarines, biological and chemical weapons, and so on. Liberals basically just go a couple of weapons further in the small category, like machine guns and semi-automatic rifles of the AR-15 mold. And actually, many Liberals do not want to prohibit ownership of those weapons, but simply restrict them, like imposing a higher age limit or a stricter licensing procedure.
I don't care tbh.
Nicholas Cruz didn't go through any process to buy his AR-15. Slapped the money down and walked out with an AR-15.
No I didn't say they were intimidated, I said the exact opposite. What I did say is these clowns tried to intimidate and failed.
It's actually pretty common for people to be intimidated by weapons. Like I said, there's plenty of examples about that, including The Mulford law that addressed that specific point.
I know you want to shift this conversation towards politicians, but that's not how it works, and I won't let you. They weren't doing anything different than they do every day.
Liberals mostly get fear mongered into that position. Also it's very obvious they'll continue to erode at access to guns. So their current position is ultimately irrelevant. One just has to look at how all their blueprint countries control guns.
So incredibly rare even without the process.
Slippery slope fallacy. And Liberals can never, ever "erode access" to guns per the second amendment. Other countries don't have a second amendment. I think Conservatives are fear mongered into believing that every Liberal who calls for more gun control is a "gun grabber." From what we know about brain development, the fact we have more young people than ever on anti-depressants, with suicide among young people the highest it's been in decades, I think the minimum age of 18 for gun ownership is illogical. 21 to drink, 21 to gamble, 21 to own a gun (and yes, 21 to enter military). 18 isn't an "adult." It's an arbitrary age to define adulthood we picked out of a hat.
A mass shooting of innocent people in a Walmart or school in a first world, supposedly civilized society shouldn't be "rare," it should be nonexistent. Hmm.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...hey-do-n597091
What about when Trump made peoples' guns illegal a couple of years ago then?
It's worse than that, tbh... the 'left' is just the convenient boogeyman, they're indoctrinated into thinking they can battle big bad gubmint with a weapon. The whole construction is a fallacy at many levels.
Bull
There's been several mass shootings since then.
They are just cherry picking. Those people who shot and killed 4 or 5 people in their own families don't matter?
This is wrong too.
They know they cannot battle the US military or even the police force. Only an idiot would think otherwise.
Technically, more gun control = more gun grabbing, because there's never enough gun control to suit the anti-gun crowd as long as people still own guns.
It's not a slippery slope. Their position is emotional and that's why they parade kids around. That will not stop with regards to other weapons. They praise other countries that already restrict access. Some even admit their temporary demands are only a stepping stone. It's pretty clear where the puck is going.
How many vs. the good ole US of A? If we're counting those as mass shootings, I'd wager Australia has seen less than 10 since Port Arthur, while the US has probably seen over a 1000.
If you'd gladly leave, why are you still here?
No, the emotional position is "From mah cold, dead hands! Yeehaw. 2nd amendment!" The rational position is appealing to scientific fact that the prefrontal cortex (which controls impulse) isn't fully developed until age 25.
How many before the gun ban?
Goalpost move btw... if you're going to tote ciphers, don't offer up that false narrative about Australia not having any mass shootings in 20 years.
People get killed in numerous ways by a numerous amount of legal products.
Oh, found the stat. Jesus.
Per DMC's criteria.Gun Violence Archive, frequently cited by the press, defines a mass shooting as firearm violence resulting in at least four people being shot at roughly the same time and location, excluding the perpetrator.[8][9] Using this definition, there have been 2,128 mass shootings since 2013, roughly one per day.[8][10]
"From my cold, dead hands."
It isn't wrong, you have one of your purported idiots advancing that argument right here.
Technically we deal with government excesses all the time, through the judiciary or even through voting. States legislatures used to flip all the time (at least until gerrymandering came around).
We also know that Cons utional amendments can certainly be regulated, up to a certain extent, and we also have laws in the books that deal with this particular situation.
So it's not like there's no democratic process to deal with this, it's just that you have a very tiny minority that think a gun trumps the law, and they couldn't be more wrong.
That's why I said the whole construction is built on a fallacy.
But guns cause an overwhelming number of those. Nice try, though.
Nah, the emotional is clearly pushing their agenda on the masses through children. Mass crowds that have zero knowledge on the statistics behind guns. If you'd recognize that you'd realize how foolish/irrelevant your stance about liberals current position on guns really is.
“From 1979-1996 (before gun law reforms), 13 fatal mass shootings occurred in Australia, whereas from 1997 through May 2016 (after gun law reforms), no fatal mass shootings occurred,” they wrote.
Depends on the definition you use. The mass shootings in question are this kind: One definition is an act of public firearm violence—excluding gang killings, domestic violence, or terrorist acts sponsored by an organization—in which a shooter kills at least four victims.
Tell me the last time a gunman shot up a concert from a hotel window or a killed 26 elementary school children in Australia. I'll wait (forever).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions