Gun control strategy that satisfies both sides

You;re wasting your time - these people lie to themselves.

 

I'll keep it simple, no thanks. You gun grabbers really do not seem to understand the concept of reasonable. Reasonable to me is an amendment...

 

"Reasonable" means "with reason" -- that is, the arguments for (whatever) are rational and sound, across the entire length and breadth of the subject.

In reference to gun control, the arguments for the restrictions sought by the anti-gun left are fallacious and are made without regard to the limits placed on the power of the state by the constitution.

Thus, they are un-reasonable.

 

So long as those who commit mass murder are glorified and made infamous by the news media, such incidents will never cease.

 

And yet they were not purchased at the time, but rather stolen from government and law enforcement.

Then name the firearm-related restrictions that will prevent future incidents from occurring. Not prevention in the theoretical sense on paper, but in real-world physical terms. Explain what will prevent firearm owners from going out and committing mass shootings with what they already have in their possession.

 

No matter what may be proposed on the part of yourself, the united states will always have more firearm-related deaths than any other nation in the world, therefore it will always be leading the rest of the world in that particular field. Therefore no meaningful difference can be made, so there is no point in getting upset over what is ultimately an immutable fact of life.

 

I can agree with this. You change the Second, I'll accept it. Find a recent red/blue maps of the states. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.

 

But the ones the criminals used were being stolen, not legally purchased. That implies that restricting purchases to civilians didn't restrict access to criminals.

 

Every single law abiding citizen I know would accept gun control if it was mandated by an amendment. The problem is that gun grabbers are trying to legislate our rights away, when that fails they rely on activist judges to limit our rights instead of doing what the Constitution demands...

 

Quote "reasonable to me"
Yes, we all have a version of what is reasonable. No one can claim something is reasonable overall - for what is reasonable for one might not be for another.
Changing the 2nd amendment is not reasonable for some auto gun toten slingers that see concert goers in Vegas mowed down like ducks in a shooting gallery.
If these fanatics had their loved ones among the dead they might, just might.....nah, their answer is get more guns....
See, sensible adults seek conversation not the mentality, insane by a long shot, of sorting everything out in the OK corral with the 2nd amendment laminated in ones pocket.

 

"Reasonable" means "with reason" -- that is, the arguments for (whatever) are rational and sound, across the entire length and breadth of the subject.

In reference to gun control, the arguments for the restrictions sought by the anti-gun left are fallacious and are made without regard to the limits placed on the power of the state by the constitution.

Thus, they are un-reasonable.

 

If changing the 2nd is necessary for your solution, it's not a solution.

 

You dont GET a lot do you?

 

Darn good start.
Either that or wait gor the "never again" more intelligent gen to clean up the mess

 

The same generation currently engaged in consuming laundry detergent, and setting themselves on fire, simply because someone challenged them to do such over the internet?

 

You cant argue reason with gun fanatics. They make ISIS look reasonable in comparison

 

Thats not good. Humans have been doing that since Adam was a boy. In vast numbers now due to the internet.

 

Oh, you were around in the 1930s.

You were there in 1930 ? Wow. Whether some were stolen or not us immaterial. The Thompson was marketed to the public. You're just making crappolla up. It was openly available either way. You guys live in fairy land. Research the history of the Thompson before you continue to make a fool of yourself.

 

Huh ? You are strange.

 

You do like to pretend you know what you’re talking about.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole
Even wiki knows about it. How long have you been an nra mouthpiece ?

 

So if a criminal uses a car for illegal purposes, we can ban cars? We can ban phones? It's been pointed out that the ones on the market legally weren't the ones being used crimes.

 

Feel free to rebut each point using the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, SCOTUS decisions, FBI data, CDC data or any other unbiased source.

 

Now we’re talking about cars because you're wrong again ? You do spin.
Don’t bring up autos. We regulate the crap out of them.

 

You’ve got all your false talking points ready ?

 

No, we really don't.