AR’s don’t cause mass shootings. Do you think not having AR’s will change anything? So maybe by using two pistols a mass shooter kills 15 people instead of 20? Will the dems be happy with that? I’m asking what the end game is? Because nobody seems to know. Any idea?
Yes, that will be better because 5 people will be alive as opposed to dead. Am I wrong ?
If we further eliminate easy access to firearms , maybe the crazy person is forced to use a knife and stab people, so now it’s more likely that he kills around 5 people and 15 people are alive compared to an AR. To me, that’s preferable.
1 Like
I’m asking what the end game is? Because nobody seems to know. Any idea?
I have answered 3 times now.
Just because you dont like or beleive the answer, doesnt mean one wasnt given to you.
Stop pretending “nobody knows” when I have answered multipile time and its in their platform.
Every life is sacred. Unless you’re old and I gotta wear a mask, or you’re in a mass shooting and I wanna keep my super kewl guns.
1 Like
Same ■■■■ different day.
We were told categorically by cons that if Obama was elected in 2008 the second amendment was dead. We were then told it again in 2012.
Guess what? The 2A is alive and well.
I have asked this question twice now. Just because you don’t have a clue does not mean you shouldn’t acknowledge this will be a huge issue.
Buttigieg will probably be the gun czar. He has other plans. And this lack of real action would totally infuriate the squad and the progressive AOC wing. They will demand real action asap. Not doing anything substantial would cause a huge civil war in the party. Which I admit would be fun to watch. But that’s not how it will play out. Nobody has the guts to stand up to Veruca.
Or England, Austrilia, Most of Europe, etc…etc…
Iraq prior to US invasion over 1/3rd of all housholds had a gun. Good thing huh, otherwise they may have had a extreme goverment…oh…
There are actually only 3 countries that currently consider citizens gun ownership a right. US, Mexico, and Gutamalla. Obviously the 3 most non curropt countries in the world.
Amirite??!!
banning AR 16s?
Speaking for myself only, I’d be way happier if our gun laws resembled those of another civilized western country, f.e. Canada, England, Australia. All of these countries have less shootings/intentional homicide per capita than we do, so what they are doing must be working.
1 Like
You are right about two. As for us, we are the most generous, giving, fair and just country the world has ever seen. There has never been a system greater than ours. Our constitution rocks! Amirite?
1 Like
So you make up a senerio and make up statement and then want answers on how to handle it?
Amazing you think no one will “stand up to AOC and the squad”. Didnt they all endorce Bernie?
What is the total talking time teh squad got at the DNC???
Sorry -you dont get to ask a question - get a answer - then make things up and say the answer is wrong because of those things you made up in your head.
it rally does! I agree 100%!!!
Our consitution does rock. That same consitution that allows us to pass things such as
Universal background checks, Red flag laws, and removal of charleston loophole that the courts have all agreed are consitutaional.
We’ll have to wait and see. If Biden wins, there is no way that they will be happy with a few paper work changes and expanded background checks. The net result of that will be a big fat Zero. AOC will go berserk if that’s all she gets. I guess we’ll just have to wait. Right?
Biden and AOC do not agree on much. Biden has refused to endorce medicare for all, refused to endorce Abolish the police, etc.
AOC and the squad has just slighlty more power then Steven King has in the Republican Party.
Just because she lives in the head of Republicans rent free doesnt actually maker her a DNC leader.
As a reminder -Dems had a super majorty in the senate, controll of house and White House in 2008 - 2010.
Im sure you were saying the same thing then. Please list all gun control passed federally during that time.
1 Like
So, you don’t agree with our founders’ wisdom or our Constitution forbidding Congress to enter the states and meddle in the peoples’ right to keep and bear arms.
Thank you for your opinion.
JWK
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.
I do not agree that is what is happening and all and do not agree that our founding fathers intended the right to be absolute.
Luckily for me the courts also agree with me.
You do not agree with our founding fathers wisdom that any legal disagreement between states or state and federal, the states and their citizens (or about what is consitutional or not) would be handled by the judicial branch
Thank you for your opinion. It’s noted
I see people say “Noted” or “It’s Noted.” A lot. I mean a whole lot. Is that supposed to mean something special? Does “noted” mean read?" Or does “noted” mean written down in a notebook? Maybe since “Noted” has become so cliche we should switch to “I hear ya?” 
Of course, in doing so, [agreeing with you] the courts ignore the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
The irrefutable fact is the first ten amendments, which includes the 2nd Amendment, added to our Constitution were specifically adopted to restrict the newly formed federal government.
Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
Also, keep in mind of what Madison states regarding the adoption of the first ten amendments and “federalism“:
“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution
And then, we only need to read Federalist Paper No. 45 which summarizes federalism as follows:
“ The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security."
The fact is, my friend, the above is not opinion. It is documented facts.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
They obviously don’t care about the violence in the inner cities, even the biggest leftwing minority group BLM ignores it and instead focuses on the 19 unarmed people killed by cops, which roughly equates to a person having more of a chance being struck by lightning three times than being killed by the police unarmed.
1 Like
