America's """Gun""" Problem...

[Magna Singulorum]

Dinesh D'Souza's new moive trailer:

http://hillarysamericathemovie.com/?utm ... mediabuys#

For anyone who doesn't know who he is or his prior work check out:

http://www.dineshdsouza.com/about/

His work is not well known due to media suppression, so please spread the word

[Spirit of Hope]

Funny, since the pro-gun people aren't the ones doing them. Nor are we the ones who want innocent victims facing their assailants unarmed.

How about we make so NOBODY can get a gun. It worked in Australia after Port Arthur and in the UK after Dunblane.

Neither the UK nor Australia has seen a major change in their overall homicide rate. But sure we can pretend the gun bans actually did something.

True, which just means you have to be willing to illegally purchase guns in another state, illegally transport them into California, and have the time to do all that.

Which is a lot cheaper than the boogieman Black Market that keeps being brought up as an argument against all gun regulations.

Well since you have to illegally purchase the gun, interstate transfers must go through an FFL, I think this would have to be black market.

[HMS Vanguard]

Funny, since the pro-gun people aren't the ones doing them. Nor are we the ones who want innocent victims facing their assailants unarmed.

How about we make so NOBODY can get a gun. It worked in Australia after Port Arthur and in the UK after Dunblane.

It's an hysterical reaction to a minor problem.

[Big Jim P]

How about we make so NOBODY can get a gun. It worked in Australia after Port Arthur and in the UK after Dunblane.

Sounds like a big civil rights violation, considering it's not only a right, but punishing a majority of people for nothing.

An overwhelmingly VAST majority at that.

[G-Tech Corporation]

How about we make so NOBODY can get a gun. It worked in Australia after Port Arthur and in the UK after Dunblane.

It's an hysterical reaction to a minor problem.

Paper cuts affect 1% of office workers with pain, ban all non-paperless companies from operating.

[Gauthier]

Dinesh D'Souza's new moive trailer:

http://hillarysamericathemovie.com/?utm ... mediabuys#

For anyone who doesn't know who he is or his prior work check out:

http://www.dineshdsouza.com/about/

His work is not well known due to media suppression, so please spread the word

Or more likely because D'Souza was convicted of making illegal campaign contributions.

[Neu Leonstein]

The exact same can be applied to voting.

Yeah, exactly. So we're back at where I started: neither is a question fundamentally about exercising rights. They're public policy questions about what we want to see more of. I would argue we want to see more voting, and less shooting. If you disagree, then you'd have a different stance on voter ID and ammo purchase ID issues. But there's nothing deeply hypocritical about that, I don't think.

[Spirit of Hope]

The exact same can be applied to voting.

Yeah, exactly. So we're back at where I started: neither is a question fundamentally about exercising rights. They're public policy questions about what we want to see more of. I would argue we want to see more voting, and less shooting. If you disagree, then you'd have a different stance on voter ID and ammo purchase ID issues. But there's nothing deeply hypocritical about that, I don't think.

What is wrong with people legally shooting their own guns?

[Big Jim P]

The exact same can be applied to voting.

Yeah, exactly. So we're back at where I started: neither is a question fundamentally about exercising rights. They're public policy questions about what we want to see more of. I would argue we want to see more voting, and less shooting. If you disagree, then you'd have a different stance on voter ID and ammo purchase ID issues. But there's nothing deeply hypocritical about that, I don't think.

Considering that most shooting is far from criminal, more of it would not be an issue.

[UnjustlyBannedLlamas]

It's an hysterical reaction to a minor problem.

Paper cuts affect 1% of office workers with pain, ban all non-paperless companies from operating.

Ah yes, I remember when there were incidents of terrorists going around garroting people with sheets of A4. Dark times.

[UnjustlyBannedLlamas]

How about we make so NOBODY can get a gun. It worked in Australia after Port Arthur and in the UK after Dunblane.

It's an hysterical reaction to a minor problem.

I'm sure the victims families will be thrilled to know you think so little of their loved ones deaths.

[Paddy O Fernature]

It's an hysterical reaction to a minor problem.

I'm sure the victims families will be thrilled to know you think so little of their loved ones deaths.

Strawman much?

[Spirit of Hope]

It's an hysterical reaction to a minor problem.

I'm sure the victims families will be thrilled to know you think so little of their loved ones deaths.

And I'm sure the 60,000,000 gun owners love that you want to take there property away because of a statistically minor problem. Also a problem that won't be solved by taking the legal gun owners firearms, what with drug cartels proving how easy it is to smuggle things into the US. Plus those same terrorists proving they can carry out attacks even in places with much stricter gun control measures.

[UnjustlyBannedLlamas]

How about we make so NOBODY can get a gun. It worked in Australia after Port Arthur and in the UK after Dunblane.

So... You want to take away a constitutional right,

It's an AMENDMENT! It wasn't originally in the constitution.

allow the government to push the people around like pawns and add more of a risk of mass shootings?

Restricting guns causes mass shootings...how?

Because *Surprise!* most mass shootings take place in "gun free zones".

Never get tired of that myth.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Paper cuts affect 1% of office workers with pain, ban all non-paperless companies from operating.

Ah yes, I remember when there were incidents of terrorists going around garroting people with sheets of A4. Dark times.

Remember that time when terrorists hijacked a plane with AK-47s and crashed it into the WTC?

Remember how the Boston Bomber used military-grade explosives?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So... You want to take away a constitutional right,

It's an AMENDMENT! It wasn't originally in the constitution.

And? That's not a relevant fact at all.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Ah yes, I remember when there were incidents of terrorists going around garroting people with sheets of A4. Dark times.

Remember that time when terrorists hijacked a plane with AK-47s and crashed it into the WTC?

Remember how the Boston Bomber used military-grade explosives?

Remember the time where some guy bought military surplus explosives at a home and garden store and blew up a building in Oklahoma?

[Spirit of Hope]

So... You want to take away a constitutional right,

It's an AMENDMENT! It wasn't originally in the constitution.

You are correct, it was the second amendment, part of a group of ten that was required by a number of states before they would agree to the original constitution. Oh plus once it is amended into the constitution it is a constitutional right. That is how amendments work.

Because *Surprise!* most mass shootings take place in "gun free zones".

Never get tired of that myth.

Something like 95% of mass shooting's happen in gun free zones.

[UnjustlyBannedLlamas]

I'm sure the victims families will be thrilled to know you think so little of their loved ones deaths.

And I'm sure the 60,000,000 gun owners love that you want to take there property away because of a statistically minor problem.

Innocent people being mowed down by maniacs with guns is a 'minor problem'?

Also a problem that won't be solved by taking the legal gun owners firearms,

Port Arthur, Dunblane.

what with drug cartels proving how easy it is to smuggle things into the US. Plus those same terrorists proving they can carry out attacks even in places with much stricter gun control measures.

And if they are caught they get arrested.

[HMS Vanguard]

It's an hysterical reaction to a minor problem.

I'm sure the victims families will be thrilled to know you think so little of their loved ones deaths.

Why would they expect any different? I am a total stranger. Although I have sympathy in a vague sense for people who are the victims of improbably tragedies, I do not think that we should make law on the basis of their emotions. We should not ask murder victims' families whether burning at the stake is an appropriate punishment for murder.

[UnjustlyBannedLlamas]

It's an AMENDMENT! It wasn't originally in the constitution.

You are correct, it was the second amendment, part of a group of ten that was required by a number of states before they would agree to the original constitution. Oh plus once it is amended into the constitution it is a constitutional right. That is how amendments work.

So we vote to change it.

Never get tired of that myth.

Something like 95% of mass shooting's happen in gun free zones.

And jet fuel cant melt steel beams.

[Spirit of Hope]

And I'm sure the 60,000,000 gun owners love that you want to take there property away because of a statistically minor problem.

Innocent people being mowed down by maniacs with guns is a 'minor problem'?

Car crashes kill 30,000 and injure 2 million.
Alcohol kills 80,000.
Cigarettes kill 200,000, of which 40,000 are non smokers.
In comparison I think mass shootings are a minor issue, yes. There tragic, but they aren't a problem warranting your response.

Also a problem that won't be solved by taking the legal gun owners firearms,

Port Arthur, Dunblane.

Weren't terrorists.

what with drug cartels proving how easy it is to smuggle things into the US. Plus those same terrorists proving they can carry out attacks even in places with much stricter gun control measures.

And if they are caught they get arrested.

Which is really stopping the flow of illegal materials into the US. Also again, they have carried out far deadlier attacks in nations with stricter regulations.

[Big Jim P]

I'm sure the victims families will be thrilled to know you think so little of their loved ones deaths.

And I'm sure the 60,000,000 gun owners love that you want to take there property away because of a statistically minor problem. Also a problem that won't be solved by taking the legal gun owners firearms, what with drug cartels proving how easy it is to smuggle things into the US. Plus those same terrorists proving they can carry out attacks even in places with much stricter gun control measures.

More than 100 million by latest estimates. 400+ million guns too. We should have half a billion guns in private hands in a short time. And crime keeps going down too.

So much for the gun-grabber mantra of more guns equaling more crime.

[Spirit of Hope]

You are correct, it was the second amendment, part of a group of ten that was required by a number of states before they would agree to the original constitution. Oh plus once it is amended into the constitution it is a constitutional right. That is how amendments work.

So we vote to change it.

Feel free. If you can get enough votes to do it, try for it. I won't support it.

Something like 95% of mass shooting's happen in gun free zones.

And jet fuel cant melt steel beams.

Have a source.
Do you have a source to refute this?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Innocent people being mowed down by maniacs with guns is a 'minor problem'?

Car crashes kill 30,000 and injure 2 million.
Alcohol kills 80,000.
Cigarettes kill 200,000, of which 40,000 are non smokers.
In comparison I think mass shootings are a minor issue, yes. There tragic, but they aren't a problem warranting your response

B-but those aren't meant to kill people like guns are!