Another mass shooting deserves a better answer.

Well I guess no one needs an abortion or needs to vote.

I’m sorry, but you’re talking about DEGRADING a civil right, not expanding. When you realize that’s what you’re doing, maybe, just maybe, you’ll realize it’s not right to do.

I’ll say it again, need is not necessary when it comes to CIVIL RIGHTS. You have them simply because you exist and they are not granted to you by the government.

 

Yup … and of course you know that the ruling has no bearing as to precisely what type of weapons can be obtained by non-military personnel in each state, right? this is why I put forth the proposal. Check this out:

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/prot...court-leaves-lower-court-victories-untouched/

https://rocketffl.com/who-can-own-a-full-auto-machine-gun/

 

Man, you do like to shovel it, don't cha? I mean, there's NOTHING funny about the loss of life in the last 30 years to assault weapons that were previously on the 1994 AWB list....just ask the surviving family members. If you think otherwise, that is disgusting.

What's truly hysterically is how you shotgun a bunch of juxtaposed opinions, assertions and accusations that YOU CANNOT/HAVE NOT provided one shred of valid documented proof, and think no one will notice. Like the previous poster, you keep parroting the notion that any gun control is a violation of the Constitution....here, for your education. Read it carefully and comprehensively: https://rocketffl.com/who-can-own-a-full-auto-machine-gun/

What it all boils down to is some childish notion that "I want it, and you can't keep it from me" regarding the 1994 AWB list. It has NOTHING to do with home protection, because people have been/are doing that with .38 revolvers, hunting rifles and shotguns....LONG before you or I were born. When your personal freedom presents a danger to the general public, that freedom can be regulated by a government chosen of, by and for the people. Like Jagger sang, you can't always get what you want, but you can get what you need.

 

Didn't happen when the 1994 AWB was in play, did it?

 

I tire or repeating myself to parroting with no originality. Here's how I schooled your like mined compadres:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-better-answer.559709/page-26#post-1070934863

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-better-answer.559709/page-26#post-1070934826

 

The times they are a changing and so are the courts. Trump is unstacking them and the fight continues.

Wasn't there something about 10 round magazines?

 

And yet you have a LOT of folks killed by weapons that were on the 1994 AWB list. And currently you have an "iron pipeline" of weapons bought in states with lesser gun laws to be used in other states with more stringent ones. So yes, additional laws can work...the OP proposal has merit, and neither undermine the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens to own guns.

 

Essentially your parroting a NRA talking point the equates any gun control legislation as a prelude to full government confiscation and banning of all civilian weapons. History shows that's just BS.

 

And did you research who blocked against any legislation to close "iron pipelines" that are a major contributor to these problems?

 

1. Spare me your desperate attempts to change the subject. What you "guess" at is irrelevant, as I previously demonstrated. the sheer stupidity of equating gun control with voting rights boggles the mind...as one is about insuring a gov't by, of and for the people BUT IS NOT MANDATORY. Just as abortion is a PERSONAL CHOICE, NOT a Mandate. Gun control affects you whether you vote or not, or decide to have an abortion or not....just ask the survivors and victim's family members of mass shootings in the las 20 years.
2. To date neither you or your like minded compadres have demonstrated how even when the 1994 AWB was in play your civil right was "degraded", as a plethora of weapons were still available...many touted by gunners as far more effective killing machines than the AR-15. You need to understand that ad nausea repetition of a lie does not make it a truism.
3. Repeating an erroneous statement doesn't make it true, as I've deconstructed your statement previously. History shows that laws must be established and agreed upon in order for a society to function. Any jackass can claim sovereignty and act accordingly....it's how they effect their neighbors is what counts....hence laws to avoid conflict. Damn, they taught this in grade school civics!

 

1. I notice you didn't deal with the FACTS that proved my contentions correct and your assertion in err. Mentioning the duplicitous Orange Oaf in the White House isn't helping you any.

2. Yep, and here's what that was about: https://wjla.com/news/connect-to-co...t-new-scrutiny-as-congress-returns-09-02-2019

No gun confiscation there.

 

Only about 5% of the population has CCW permits.

It's not the "2nd Amendment/NRA/pro-gun lobby" fault that more people don't exercise their rights more.

 

Keeping and bearing arms is a constitutional right.

Keeping, owning and driving a vehicle is a privilege.

Apples and oranges.

 

Until the two mass shootings in Texas this month, I didn't support confiscation of automatic weapons. But now I do. There's been too many innocent Americans paying the price for that 2nd Amendment being totally open to abuse by anyone out there, including the mentally ill. It's time for a change. It's time for real regulation & strong enforcement.

 

The United States has always been a more violent society and not by much more than other countries and since 1990 the homicide rate has been decreasing in the U.S....

 

Confiscate what weapons and from who?

 

It is absolute fact. The only acceptable end to this struggle is complete victory and the BS will go on to that end.

 

One step at a time.

 

Automatic weapons are already strictly controlled.

 

Magazine capacity isn't going to reduce gun deaths because magazines can be dropped and replaced in a split second...

 

We could follow Biden's advice from earlier today.

'Absolutely mindless' we haven't banned 'magazines that can hold multiple bullets in them’

As in more than one... (Scratching my head here) So I guess legal magazines would antithetically break with denotative meaning & hold precisely one round... lol A uni-widget would perhaps be a better name... This would ensure that virtually all armed individuals, hunters etc. would have a round chambered so as to have x 2 rounds in the gun... Brilliant!


(a little over a minute into the video)

 

I'll happily support mandatory firearm training classes so long as they're not a bar to exersizing ones constitutional rights. That would, of course, require that such classes be free of charge (fully subsidized), available on demand to all non-probited persons and require not but attendance for passage and certification.

Anything less would create 'pay-to-play' of yet another constitutional right, and be more of a burden to certain underprivledged or minority groups than to the wealthy and influencial.

 

Confiscate & make illegal, private ownership of any weapon that can put a bullet into 21 individual Americans within 30 seconds.

 

Then control semi-automatic ones, if they are wounding or killing 21 people within 30 seconds, like in Dayton, OH.

 

So, you only want the government and criminals to have those types of weapons? What can go wrong?