Urban poor are killed by guns, the NRA want everyone to have guns, it's pretty simple I think. Every single 1st world country in the world is able to curb gun violence effectively, so spare me the "oh how could we possibly stop guns except with more guns" speech. As for NRA hysteria:shimmy wrote: I would though love to hear about the "hysterical nonsense" that people are rallying against. Or more about how the NRA is directly responsible for the murders of the black inner-city poor who have no lobbying groups who speak their interests, except of course the ACLU and NAACP (and, as your argument would logically conclude, every gun control lobby). I'd like to hear how the NRA's opposition to an assault weapons ban is directly responsible for inner-city homicide rates when something like 97% of gun homicides are committed with hand guns. I'd like to hear how the refusal to adopt "common sense gun regulations" is driving inner-city violence when every gun purchase already requires a federal background check except for private sales between individuals (which is impossible to track without a registry and is still mostly meaningless since it's already illegal to sell to a known felon - which most gang members who are largely responsible for the crime already are - and when it's been proven that most in prison acquired their guns through illegal means). I'd also like to know how this NRA murder industry disproportionately affects the inner-city poor and not the gun-toting, meth-smoking, rural redneck poor. Furthermore, I'd love to hear of the gun laws that you think would curb such violence.
I would also, less argumentatively, like to hear what you think of Speaker Ryan's recently unveiled plan to combat poverty and what you think the best course of action would be on that front.
Sent from my HTC Desire 610 using Tapatalk
I could pull a hundred more quotes but it's making me sad. Or I could just quote the stock prices for gun companies since Obama was elected. Anyway, NRA = purveyors of hysteria.“A heinous act of mass murder—either by terrorists or by some psychotic who should have been locked up long ago—will be the pretext to unleash a tsunami of gun control.”
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
"We don't trust government, because government itself has proven unworthy of our trust. We trust ourselves and we trust what we know in our hearts to be right. We trust our freedom. In this uncertain world, surrounded by lies and corruption everywhere you look, there is no greater freedom than the right to survive and protect our families with all the rifles, shotguns, and handguns we want. We know in the world that surrounds us there are terrorists and there are home invaders, drug cartels, carjackers, knockout gamers, and rapers, and haters, and campus killers, airport killers, shopping mall killers and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse our society that sustains us all."
"It's not paranoia to buy a gun. It's survival."
"banning people and things because of the way they look went out a long time ago. But here they are again. The color of a gun. The way it looks. It's just bad politics."
“And here’s another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it? Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like “American Psycho” and “Natural Born Killers” that are aired like propaganda loops on “Splatterdays” and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it “entertainment.” But is that what it really is? Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?
Right now we're facing an all-out attack on our Second Amendment freedoms.
Gun bans, gun registration, legislation, court cases, the U.N. global gun ban treaty, Obama's executive orders, the freedom-hating media elite... the attacks are hitting everywhere, everyday...
The fact that every defense of gun ownership begins with "a bunch of 300-year-old dead white guys said so" is pretty telling. Nobody ever says "well personally I'd be fine with quartering troops in your living room but John Adams said we can't."quincunx wrote:Got a recruitment letter today. It begins
Right now we're facing an all-out attack on our Second Amendment freedoms.
Gun bans, gun registration, legislation, court cases, the U.N. global gun ban treaty, Obama's executive orders, the freedom-hating media elite... the attacks are hitting everywhere, everyday...
Ralph Nader 2016:user28 wrote:Ralph Nader 2020
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Multiply that across the continuum. You can’t say this about that, and you can’t say that about this. And the employer tells you to hush. And perhaps your spouse tells you to hush, and your kids tell you to hush. … A lot of these people grew up on ethnic jokes, which are totally taboo now. …
They used ethnic jokes to reduce tension in the 1930s, ’40s, ’50s. And they’d laugh at each other’s jokes and hurl another one. But it still flows through ethnic America, you know. There are hundreds of things that people would like to say.
You see it on campuses — what is it called, trigger warnings? It’s gotten absurd. I mean, you repress people, you engage in anger, and what you do is turn people into skins that are blistered by moonbeams. Young men now are far too sensitive because they’ve never been in a draft. They’ve never had a sergeant say, “Hit the ground and do 50 push-ups and I don’t care if there’s mud there.”
Depends. If cantaloupe outnumber people 10 million to 1, then maybe not. If one cantalope were responsible for 9900 homicides, we should throw it in jail.leeharveyawesome wrote:If one were to look at the last 10,000 city homicides and discover that 99% of the time a cantaloupe pulled the trigger would you consider banning just cantaloupes from owning guns?
Senate Republicans have tried to work with Donald Trump. They’ve offered gentle advice and firm guidance, hoping he’ll morph into a general election candidate who won’t kill their chances of keeping the Senate, or better yet, will give Hillary Clinton a run for her money.
None of it has worked. And now a palpable mix of despair and resignation has permeated the Senate Republican Conference. Many lawmakers are openly frustrated, and refusing to defend the comments and actions of their own standard-bearer, the man they’ve endorsed for president.
Story Continued Below
Trump’s insinuation that President Barack Obama may be sympathetic to Islamic State terrorists was the final straw for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
“I’m not going to be commenting on the presidential candidates today,” the Kentucky Republican said Tuesday, an abrupt reversal after several weeks of weighing in on Trump’s performance, particularly the ways he believed the candidate needed to improve.
McConnell’s No. 2, Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, declared he is done talking about Trump until after the election — nearly five months away.
While I am not in total disagreement with you. There are many features which i would not consider "aesthetic" that could easily be argued are not needed for the general public to protect themselves. Since as you point out, MOST crimes are committed with hand guns as opposed to assault rifles, the general public shouldn't need assault rifles to protect themselves either. Acting ignorant about what an "assault rifle" is is ridiculous too. They have very definable features.shimmy wrote:Most of the quotes you quote as being hysteria are true. I'm not sure what world you think we live in, but we do live in a world of murderers, rapists, cartels, etc. etc. But more than that it's particularly tiring for gun rights activists to have this fight with people who don't know what the hell they're talking about. Who do classify what guns are acceptable and what guns aren't based on aesthetic components. Who advocate for laws that they are sure will make a difference when those laws are already in place. Who have no knowledge of the process of actually buying a gun, let alone firing one. To make an analogy that those on the left might understand, I imagine it's how liberals feel when they freak out when men try to pass pro-life laws because they don't know anything about women's health.
Sent from my HTC Desire 610 using Tapatalk
The only legitimate concern in this list is magazine capacity. Even that I disagree with. The shooter in Orlando fired, from reports, thousands of rounds, meaning he had to reload numerous times. The Virginia Tech shooter carried out his rampage with a basic Glock 19 pistol and a .22 training pistol. In these scenarios where the shooter is unchallenged it really doesn't matter what the capacity is as long as there's no resistance. The Washington Naval Yard shooter was armed with a basic shotgun.STLEnginerd wrote:
Included
-collapsible stocks & foreshortened barrels (allows for concealment and close quarters engagement)
-high capacity clips (allows for incredible volume of fire before reloading)
-semi-automatics with low recoil (improves ability to aim on successive shots)
-silencers (less audible shots)
-non-metallic construction (able to bypass security metal detectors)
if you're against global capitalism, I don't see why you would choose Trump over Clinton. He's a crony capitalist himself, and if Clinton's free trade economics have a fault it's that they help guys like Donald Trump more than union workers. Trump isn't the guy who is going to boost wages or unionization. His protectionist stance might play well alongside his xenophobia, but there's no way he'll do anything to empower workers over owners.True_dope wrote:I guess I am in the minority but I am voting for Trump over Clinton. Her support on policies like NAFTA and soon TTP are things that help seed up the decline of the mind-west and rust belt while contradicting the nations wealth on the cost. I don't agree with a lot of the words trump uses but the nation can't keep on electing the same people are expecting different results.
I agree that to have an impact we basically need to limit or ban semi-automatics. Shotguns and bolt-action rifles are sufficient for home defense and hunting, semi-autos are toys and/or mass-killing machines. I doubt that would get much traction with the broader populace in the US, even if every other civilized country would think it incredible/terrifying that you can buy a hand gun from Walmart, but I think that's what you need to do in order to have a significant impact. The other stuff is just aesthetic concerns that maybe make guns less attractive for tacticool Call of Duty LARPers.shimmy wrote: But the point behind calling them aesthetic is that, besides the semi-automatic distinction, nothing listed has any impact on how the weapon actually fires. They're additions.
So what results are you expecting with Trump? If its any one thing of a multitude of things that Trump has promised, that could be kicking 11 million Hispanics (somehow), building a wall, banning Muslims, ripping up NAFTA/TPP, defaulting on our national debt, letting North Korea have nukes, and more. Which of those results are better than the status quo?Her support on policies like NAFTA and soon TTP are things that help seed up the decline of the mind-west and rust belt while contradicting the nations wealth on the cost. I don't agree with a lot of the words trump uses but the nation can't keep on electing the same people are expecting different results.
I think that's a fair point. So how do you propose we keep AR-15's out of the hands of madmen/terrorists?I'm opposed to barring people on the terror watch list from buying guns; not because it violates the second amendment (though that is more of an effect for my reason as opposed to the cause), but because it violates the fifth. You can't deny someone their Constitutional rights because some government entity arbitrarily decides to deny them without due process of law.
