Another mass shooting deserves a better answer.

...and ended in 2004 and the crime rates and homicides by gun have continued to fall.

You were saying?

 

Says YOU and the gun lobby. The Constitution allows for Congress to pass Amendments, you know. That's why the NRA bought GOP fights against re-establishing the 1994 AWB...and why it will be re-established when they lose the majority in the Senate and House.

 

Really? Depends upon what stats you look at now, doesn't it? Observe and learn: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/chart-and-after-the-assault

 

YOU first asserted that since only roughly 5% of the Texas population have CCW permits, there was a slim chance that they would be at that shopping mall. I point out that you're just trying to pass off guess work as fact. But instead of admitting you were wrong on that point, you blow out the usual gunner smoke. Here's what you ignore:

https://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

 

You "pay to play" just to have a gun license in any state, you know.....fees vary and are relatively inexpensive as opposed to say, a down payment on a car with it's license(s) and registration. How the hell could a training class bar someone from exercising their constitutional rights sounds like more drivel a'la Mister Lapierre.

Bottom line: the OP proposal has merit....that people just don't flat out admit, accept that is kind of sad given the current mass shooting deaths.

 

That's nice.....no gun confiscation there.....or since.

And exactly how does this invalidate the OP proposal?

 

Typical lame gunner tactic....you can't win on one point http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-better-answer.559709/page-26#post-1070934900

So you throw up another. But guess what? No gun confiscation, no invalidation of the OP proposal. Next.

 

And since you can go and buy a plethora of shot guns, hand guns, hunting rifles, how is your civil right degrading? You "need" a gun, you can get one...you want a gun, you can get one so long as you're law abiding and follow state/federal laws.

The sheer absurdity of "I want it just because...." feeds right into the gun manufacturers profit margin. Well, license and registration gets you that gun, and it cuts down on nut jobs doing the same. Without NRA blinders, the logic is simple.

 

The chronology of the posts shows your inability to logically and factually disprove or refute my posts....noted here how you avoid the facts I put forth, as you have no rational rebuttal. Smoke on, McDuff.

 

Please deal with reality....you just don't have the cojones to honestly admit to the facts, so you put forth some fantasy about building your own AR-15? Are you really this obtuse? Every mass shooting with Assault weapons would've been done buy the perps crafting their own weapons. Really?

Reality is as the OP addresses and what I said previously....your silly fantasy is no rebuttal.

 

Horowitz is a blinders wearing neocon parrot for the NRA....the above is a collection of sheer partial truths, heavy suppositions, speculations and pure lies.

Nothing he says above debunks the OP proposal, which does NOT infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

 

Your opinion has no merit in fact or logic...and you have yet to refute the OP proposal.

 

Night folks.

 

'Gun liscence'? Open Carry is the 'gun liscence' for most of the nation. Only a few places force people to pay extra to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms. These places, like CA and DC, require that firearms be carried unloaded (and thus less useful) if unliscenced. But no, liscences are not required just to carry guns. Only to conceal (or carry loaded in the afforementioned).

Would you consider mandatory voter registration and/or ID reqs to be an infringement or a suppression on voting rights?

You keep saying mandatory classes have merit (and actually I already agreed), but you balk at the idea that it be offered freely to all in an unrestrictive manner. Why? Does it not have enough merit that you would be willing to help pay for everyone, especially the less fortunate, to participate?

 

.

 

If you think gun confiscation is not part of the political agenda then you must be one of those 'reasonable' Americans.

 

It went into effect at least a year after the levels of crime were already starting to decrease on their own.

Ask the people of the nation of Australia who were stripped of their semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns. Ask the people of the nation of Venezuela who were stripped of all their firearms.

If a single criminal misuse of firearms is going to be argued as grounds to restrict the legal access to firearms, then a single act of registration leading to confiscation is grounds to claim the two are linked and cannot be separated from one another.

 

If an individual cannot legally purchase an AR-15, or any other type of modern firearm that was designed and marketed in the last fifty years, it is a right being degraded. If the second amendment only applies to firearm designs and technology that were created in the nineteenth century, such as the bolt-action rifle, then it is not a right at all. It would be no different than holding the first amendment does not apply to your computer.

 

You realize McDuff becomes king after slaughtering Macbeth... right?

 

The latest in Texas was a home manufactured example that was illegally sold by both the seller and by the buyer. The seller made and sold to people who couldnt obtain otherwise: double illegal.

 

Your link doesn't refute anything that I have posted so far. In fact, it affirms what I have posted so far.

 

Of course it depends on what stats one uses.

You posted a link that ONLY looks at mass shooting deaths and NOT total gun deaths.

Total gun deaths have been on the decline before and after the end of the AWB in 2004.

BTW, the AWB didn't ban AR/AK type rifles. Did you know that?

 

Says me and the gun lobby? No. Says the second amendment...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

 

Most don't know that it was just a stipulation against having > 2 'shootier' or 'scary' features on the gun like a bayonet lug, pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor etc.




Both come equipped with the same capacity mags, both shoot the same .223 / 5.56mm ammo, both fire as fast as one can pull the trigger...

 

Language is a flexible & constantly evolving thing. Definitions are constantly changing & taking on new meanings. Treason is a word used in many contexts. Yes, legally, it might be what you claim, but culturally, it's more. What I see Trump & his supporters doing while empowered in government, is a far cry from anything I'd regard as being for "WE THE PEOPLE."