Mass Shootings/Gun Control Reform Thread

[gounion]

OK no problem

Over regulations is the same as banning because the result will be the same.
To say or believe that in a city as large as San Francisco and it's surrounding area hasn't effectively banned gun stores is simply ignoring the fact.
Background checks are needed but the problem is like in California those opposed to the 2nd amendment use it to ban guns. As evidenced by the recently shot down bullet regulations. ( get it shot down)
Banning magazine sizes as well as so called assault weapons while on paper make sense.

In reality it will just be used as another tool to do away with the 2nd amendment. As the definition of what an assault weapon is will change until all you can own is a single shot. 22.
Same with magazines.

Because we all know as soon as any so called reasonable regulations are passed. The anti gun lobby will simply go back to work the next day and work for stricter regulations.

Lastly as I got to run for a minute whatbthev2nd amendment means has been defined BY SCOTUS many times and legally according to the courts it means we as individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.
As for me I currently do not own any guns but am pro choice on the subject.

I guess we should just start handing guns out to every child as they enter school.

I’m going to point out the fact that you have zero solutions at all. You’re fine with more and more schools and events being shot up. Price of freedom, right?

Hint: It’s not.

Glenn, you think that the gun bans in DC should be knocked down too, don’t you? You think that everyone coming on January 6th should have been able to carry weapons to the “protest” legally, don’t you?

[Glennfs]

I guess we should just start handing guns out to every child as they enter school.

I’m going to point out the fact that you have zero solutions at all. You’re fine with more and more schools and events being shot up. Price of freedom, right?

Hint: It’s not.

Glenn, you think that the gun bans in DC should be knocked down too, don’t you? You think that everyone coming on January 6th should have been able to carry weapons to the “protest” legally, don’t you?

It is obvious that liberal democrats want to ban gun ownership.
It is nice to know that there is no gun violence in DC thanks to those bans.
In fact those bans have made DC the safest place to be in our country.
Followed closely by Chicago

[gounion]

It is obvious that liberal democrats want to ban gun ownership.
It is nice to know that there is no gun violence in DC thanks to those bans.
In fact those bans have made DC the safest place to be in our country.
Followed closely by Chicago

False, as always. Not in favor of gun bans.

But tell me, should DC have open carry, so those Jan 6th “protesters” could have carried an arsenal up to the Capitol building? Yes or no?

[Glennfs]

False, as always. Not in favor of gun bans.

But tell me, should DC have open carry, so those Jan 6th “protesters” could have carried an arsenal up to the Capitol building? Yes or no?

Of course not now that your questions have been answered let me ask you one.

Are those liberal members of the House and Senate who have said that our President is supporting genocide lying?

Let's see if the man who asks so many questions can answer one.

[gounion]

Of course not now that your questions have been answered let me ask you one.

Are those liberal members of the House and Senate who have said that our President is supporting genocide lying?

Let's see if the man who asks so many questions can answer one.

What do you mean, “of course not”????

So you are for gun control?

[Glennfs]

What do you mean, “of course not”????

So you are for gun control?

Answer the question are those liberal members if the House and Senate who say that our President is supporting genocide lying

[Glennfs]

Answer the question are those liberal members if the House and Senate who say that our President is supporting genocide lying

Look who is running away and hiding from a question. Why it's the man who always asks them.
Come on gutlessU man up and answer the question

[gounion]

Look who is running away and hiding from a question. Why it's the man who always asks them.
Come on gutlessU man up and answer the question

This thread is about gun control.

Why do you favor gun control, and not letting people open carry their weapons?

[ZoWie]

It must be very distressing to live in a world where millions of imaginary "liberals" want to make you a serf. Seriously, right now I feel your pain. I have to work at not living in one where everyone I see on the street is armed and dangerous.

[bird]

OK no problem

Over regulations is the same as banning because the result will be the same.
To say or believe that in a city as large as San Francisco and it's surrounding area hasn't effectively banned gun stores is simply ignoring the fact.
Background checks are needed but the problem is like in California those opposed to the 2nd amendment use it to ban guns. As evidenced by the recently shot down bullet regulations. ( get it shot down)
Banning magazine sizes as well as so called assault weapons while on paper make sense.

In reality it will just be used as another tool to do away with the 2nd amendment. As the definition of what an assault weapon is will change until all you can own is a single shot. 22.
Same with magazines.

Because we all know as soon as any so called reasonable regulations are passed. The anti gun lobby will simply go back to work the next day and work for stricter regulations.

Lastly as I got to run for a minute whatbthev2nd amendment means has been defined BY SCOTUS many times and legally according to the courts it means we as individual citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.
As for me I currently do not own any guns but am pro choice on the subject.

I haven’t had time to respond to your entire post.

That being said your claims about San Francisco are untrue.

https://hallinanlawfirm.com/gun-laws-in-san-francisco/

[Motor City]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbfB1BBo8OI

10-year-old boy speaks out after surviving Kansas City shooting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ckh48ZpcozI

10-year-old discovered bullet wound at home after Kansas City Chiefs parade

[Glennfs]

I haven’t had time to respond to your entire post.

That being said your claims about San Francisco are untrue.

https://hallinanlawfirm.com/gun-laws-in-san-francisco/

You might be correct some might have opened since regulations caused the last one in to close in 15.
Guess it's time for stricter regulations

https://www.npr.org/2015/10/27/45120261 ... s-it-quits

[bird]

You might be correct some might have opened since regulations caused the last one in to close in 15.
Guess it's time for stricter regulations

https://www.npr.org/2015/10/27/45120261 ... s-it-quits

A gun shop is not entitled to be open. No business is entitled to exist at all.

[ZoWie]

One can make a case for farming to exist, otherwise you're right. If Microsoft collapsed, someone else would make operating systems that update every two weeks and never fix the underlying problems.

[bradman]

https://news.yahoo.com/minnesota-police ... 47001.html
Suspect named in Minnesota shooting that killed 2 officers, firefighter during domestic dispute

A man accused in the past of assault and domestic violence was identified Monday as the gunman who opened fire on first responders in Burnsville, Minnesota, killing two police officers and a firefighter before he was found dead.

+
Suspect accused of domestic violence

Several women have accused Gooden of domestic violence, and, in 2008, he was convicted of assault after he allegedly pulled out a 7-inch knife during a fight, according to court records. Because of his conviction, he was banned for life from possessing firearms.In August 2020, he petitioned the court to restore his gun rights. Citing his conviction and the multiple domestic violence allegations against Gooden, the Dakota County District Attorney’s Office urged the court to deny his request, which it did two months later.Court records said Gooden, who had five children at the time, sought firearm rights to “protect not only himself but his family as well.” The petition said he had committed himself to his family and career and had taken “significant steps to prove his value as a productive and law abiding citizen.”He took anger management classes, completed a parenting course, graduated from Dakota Technical College in 2013 with an associate degree and started working in an auto-body repair shop, the petition said.“Mr. Gooden greatly regrets and has learned from the poor decisions of his past,” the petition said. “He would like to have a second chance to prove himself as a productive member of society.”

Nothing yet on how he acquired his firearms.

[gounion]

Not having a gun store in San Francisco is somehow proof to Glenn that all Democrats want to ban guns. Wonder why they hadn't done it before now.

When I lived in Texas, I lived in a town part of the DFW metroplex. It was a "dry" city, and VERY Republican. You couldn't even buy beer anywhere in the city. The restaurants that sold liquor by the drink were the only places to get alcohol. BUT they had to take your driver's license, and copy it, and wouldn't give it back until you left. They recorded every drink you had while you were there. That's how the GOP rolls.

Of course, just over the invisible line from my town and the next, there were huge liquor stores, and the grocery stores sold wine and beer.

So tell me Glenn, are Republicans prohibitionists, that, given the power, they would once again ban liquor in our nation?

It's the same argument.

Now, while I was there, the Dems, with the support of the local businesses, petitioned to put alcohol sales on the ballot. Seems the local grocery stores and businesses were losing LOTS of business, because people would just go to the next town to drink. The GOP put lots of money up to keep it off the ballot, and failing that, to fight it in the election. They lost by a HUGE margin, like 10-1. Seems the Republicans liked a drink or two themselves. But the GOP used their money to fight against the wishes of their own people.

So your argument, Glenn, is just plain bullshit.

[Glennfs]

Not having a gun store in San Francisco is somehow proof to Glenn that all Democrats want to ban guns. Wonder why they hadn't done it before now.

When I lived in Texas, I lived in a town part of the DFW metroplex. It was a "dry" city, and VERY Republican. You couldn't even buy beer anywhere in the city. The restaurants that sold liquor by the drink were the only places to get alcohol. BUT they had to take your driver's license, and copy it, and wouldn't give it back until you left. They recorded every drink you had while you were there. That's how the GOP rolls.

Of course, just over the invisible line from my town and the next, there were huge liquor stores, and the grocery stores sold wine and beer.

So tell me Glenn, are Republicans prohibitionists, that, given the power, they would once again ban liquor in our nation?

It's the same argument.

Now, while I was there, the Dems, with the support of the local businesses, petitioned to put alcohol sales on the ballot. Seems the local grocery stores and businesses were losing LOTS of business, because people would just go to the next town to drink. The GOP put lots of money up to keep it off the ballot, and failing that, to fight it in the election. They lost by a HUGE margin, like 10-1. Seems the Republicans liked a drink or two themselves. But the GOP used their money to fight against the wishes of their own people.

So your argument, Glenn, is just plain bullshit.

Well then there is that bullet law.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... as%20ruled.

It is painfully obvious to everyone except you that the democratic party wants to negate the second amendment through draconian regulations. Until such a time they can legally end the right to keep and bear arms.

[gounion]

Well then there is that bullet law.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... as%20ruled.

It is painfully obvious to everyone except you that the democratic party wants to negate the second amendment through draconian regulations. Until such a time they can legally end the right to keep and bear arms.

Two Dem Presidents across three administrations this century, and not one of them tried to ban guns.

[Toonces]

Although I'm not American, I'm not against banning guns. I'm against giving them to people that shouldn't happen, and to do this we need to know whether or not the person should have one. People shouldn't have any guns they want. Guns that blow people apart shouldn't be one of those guns they can have.

Guns that are used repeatedly to destroy bodies should not be available to just anyone.

[ZoWie]

We have wars. We need to give our warfighters training and lethal weapons, so that they can do a job most of us would not want to do.

It is obvious to just about anyone who made it through college that these weapons are best not used routinely for civilian pursuits such as hunting or self-defense. We do not allow people to possess nuclear bombs, but we have this weird idea that a Constitutional amendment that provides for a "well-ordered militia" gives every American a sacred right to carry weapons of war to a Super Bowl parade.

How very strange.

[Number6]

We have wars. We need to give our warfighters training and lethal weapons, so that they can do a job most of us would not want to do.

It is obvious to just about anyone who made it through college that these weapons are best not used routinely for civilian pursuits such as hunting or self-defense. We do not allow people to possess nuclear bombs, but we have this weird idea that a Constitutional amendment that provides for a "well-ordered militia" gives every American a sacred right to carry weapons of war to a Super Bowl parade.

How very strange.

The military teaches their people how to handle weapons safely, how to maintain their weapons, how to store them, as well as how to accurately fire them. Ever wonder why the military doesn't allow the weapons their troops are trained on to take them home or to their dorm/barracks but requires them to be locked up in the armory? For those who can't figure it out it's because no matter how much training you give a person there's always a small handful people who would pose a threat to others. It doesn't matter if it's an assault rifle or a hand gun, the military doesn't trust it's people to handle these weapons outside of their normal duties.

[ZoWie]

The military teaches their people how to handle weapons safely, how to maintain their weapons, how to store them, as well as how to accurately fire them. Ever wonder why the military doesn't allow the weapons their troops are trained on to take them home or to their dorm/barracks but requires them to be locked up in the armory? For those who can't figure it out it's because no matter how much training you give a person there's always a small handful people who would pose a threat to others. It doesn't matter if it's an assault rifle or a hand gun, the military doesn't trust it's people to handle these weapons outside of their normal duties.

Absolutely. I forgot to mention that military bases stress proper training in handling weapons, and keep them locked up the rest of the time. That's more than I can say for the streets of America.

[Number6]

Absolutely. I forgot to mention that military bases stress proper training in handling weapons, and keep them locked up the rest of the time. That's more than I can say for the streets of America.

I've met some very stupid people in the military and they should never have access to any weapon but in our society, they can buy a weapon that can shoot a dozen bullets in seconds. IMO, just like there are limits on the First Amendment freedom of speech, there should also be limits on the right to bear arms.

[ap215]

Louisiana lawmakers advance bill allowing concealed carry without permit

Republican state Senators in Louisiana advanced legislation Thursday that allows adults 18 years and older to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

The Senate approved that bill, along with another that would provide a level of immunity from civil liability for a person who uses a concealed gun to shoot a person in self-defense, The Associated Press reported.


https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... ut-permit/

[Toonces]

Louisiana lawmakers advance bill allowing concealed carry without permit

Republican state Senators in Louisiana advanced legislation Thursday that allows adults 18 years and older to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

The Senate approved that bill, along with another that would provide a level of immunity from civil liability for a person who uses a concealed gun to shoot a person in self-defense, The Associated Press reported.


https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... ut-permit/

That doesn't seem like common sense. Making it easier to tote a gun around isn't addressing an epidemic of gun deaths.