4 Guns Bills Fail in Senate; Democrats Trying to Blame Republicans

[sealybobo]

I have a rifle that will shoot 4 shots. You can't stop me from going up to a bell tower and shooting 4 people but by the time I reload everyone else will have run for cover.

If my ruger 450 bushmaster held 20 rounds I'd be able to kill a lot more than 4.

And I don't need more than 4. The gun is meant for hunting. Why do you own a 20 round gun? Well, they are now illegal schmuck. But you can keep yours.

I heard someone say something about a buyback program. No. You let people keep their guns. You just don't make anymore. That'll make your gun more valuable. Maybe double the price. Don't be a baby.

Is your ignorance your bliss? Or are you simply a Tyrant Terrorist Hugger?
You have absolutely No CLUE why the 2nd amendment even exists. Nothing to do with hunting.
View attachment 275375

2012 - Venezuelans gave up their Guns, Soon after a murderous Dictator took power and began culling the opposition. The nation in ruins

In a FREE SOCIETY, there will ALWAYS be a few dangerous imbeciles who manage to kill a HANDFUL innocent people.

In a TYRANNICAL SOCIETY, where the population is disarmed, there will ALWAYS be MILLIONS of helpless people subject to mass murder at the hands of tyrants.

We aren't going to give up our guns. We're just going to stop making wmd's. Stop making bad arguments you fuckers.

What about Canada and Australia. Why don't you use them as examples?

 

[sealybobo]

When will atheist Democrats stop shooting people?

When you pass common sense gun legislation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And so, you DO want to unnecessarily and ineffectively restrict the rights of the law abiding.
Why on EARTH should we agree to it?

Because we the people pass a law saying you must.

So, you have no rational reason why we should accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on our rights.
Thanks.
Why do you think unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on our rights do not qualify as infringements on same?

It's not unnecessary.

You just said nothing will stop the next Sandyhook.
If nothing will stop the next Sandyhook, how is a law that is intended to stop it necessary?

The goal is to limit the number of victims.

Nothing you want to do will accomplish this.
Why do you want to lay unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?
Why do you think said unnecessary and ineffective restrictions do not qualify as infringements?
What rational reason to the law abiding have to accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on their rights?

I told you they aren't unnecessary or ineffective.

You "telling" me this means nothing, other than you know you cannot DEMONSTRATE their necessity and efficacy.
And so, my questions stand:
- Why do you want to lay unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?
- Why do you think said unnecessary and ineffective restrictions do not qualify as infringements?
- What rational reason to the law abiding have to accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on their rights?

 

[M14 Shooter]

They'll get guns. Guns that don't hold 20 bullets dummy.

Speaking of dummies...
If Adam Lanza had a pump-action shotgun that held just 4 rounds, he could and would have killed the same number of people.
Why do you support unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?

 

[M14 Shooter]

We're just going to stop making wmd's.

You said this ^^^^

Stop making bad arguments you fuckers.

Then you said THIS ^^^

 

[sealybobo]

Your cartoon misses the point you stupid fucker The caption should read, "you shot 26 children. We have got to do something about semi auto guns and magazines that carry more than 10 rounds.

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people, including 20 children between six and seven years old, and six adult staff members.

The incident remains the deadliest mass shooting at either a high school or grade school in U.S. history and the fourth-deadliest mass shooting by a single person in U.S. history. The shooting prompted renewed debate about gun control in the United States, including proposals to make the background-check system universal, and for new federal and state gun legislation banning the sale and manufacture of certain types of semi-automatic firearms and magazines with more than ten rounds of ammunition.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When you pass common sense gun legislation.

There's no sense of any kind to be found in any of the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you want to lay on the law abiding.

 

[sealybobo]

We're just going to stop making wmd's.

You said this ^^^^

Stop making bad arguments you fuckers.

Then you said THIS ^^^

Yea, WMD's. You can still have a gun that carries 10 rounds.

I've asked but no one will answer. If I invented a gun that could kill 1/4th of the people in a football stadium with one pull of the trigger, would you be ok with anyone/everyone carrying this kind of weapon around? I notice none of you will answer the question. Makes me think it's a good question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your cartoon misses the point you stupid fucker The caption should read, "you shot 26 children. We have got to do something about semi auto guns and magazines that carry more than 10 rounds.
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people, including 20 children between six and seven years old, and six adult staff members.

If Adam Lanza had a pump-action shotgun that held just 4 rounds, he could and would have killed the same number of people.
Why do you support unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?

 

[M14 Shooter]

We're just going to stop making wmd's.

You said this ^^^^

Stop making bad arguments you fuckers.

Then you said THIS ^^^

Yea, WMD's. You can still have a gun that carries 10 rounds.

Stop making bad arguments you fucker.

 

[sealybobo]

Because we the people pass a law saying you must.

So, you have no rational reason why we should accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on our rights.
Thanks.
Why do you think unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on our rights do not qualify as infringements on same?

It's not unnecessary.

You just said nothing will stop the next Sandyhook.
If nothing will stop the next Sandyhook, how is a law that is intended to stop it necessary?

The goal is to limit the number of victims.

Nothing you want to do will accomplish this.
Why do you want to lay unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?
Why do you think said unnecessary and ineffective restrictions do not qualify as infringements?
What rational reason to the law abiding have to accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on their rights?

I told you they aren't unnecessary or ineffective.

You "telling" me this means nothing, other than you know you cannot DEMONSTRATE their necessity and efficacy.
And so, my questions stand:
- Why do you want to lay unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?
- Why do you think said unnecessary and ineffective restrictions do not qualify as infringements?
- What rational reason to the law abiding have to accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on their rights?

You're not listening. Shut up.

 

[sealybobo]

When you pass common sense gun legislation.

There's no sense of any kind to be found in any of the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you want to lay on the law abiding.

But they aren't unnecessary and ineffective. They aren't unnecessary and ineffective. THey aren't!!!

unnecessary and ineffective

unnecessary and ineffective

unnecessary and ineffective

unnecessary and ineffective

unnecessary and ineffective

Shut the fuck up dummy.

God I can't wait till we pass this legislation some day.

 

[sealybobo]

When you pass common sense gun legislation.

There's no sense of any kind to be found in any of the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you want to lay on the law abiding.

Was the restrictions on machine guns and automatic weapons unnecessary and ineffective?

No? Then you are wrong stupid.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, you have no rational reason why we should accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on our rights.
Thanks.
Why do you think unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on our rights do not qualify as infringements on same?
You just said nothing will stop the next Sandyhook.
If nothing will stop the next Sandyhook, how is a law that is intended to stop it necessary?

The goal is to limit the number of victims.

Nothing you want to do will accomplish this.
Why do you want to lay unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?
Why do you think said unnecessary and ineffective restrictions do not qualify as infringements?
What rational reason to the law abiding have to accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on their rights?

I told you they aren't unnecessary or ineffective.

You "telling" me this means nothing, other than you know you cannot DEMONSTRATE their necessity and efficacy.
And so, my questions stand:
- Why do you want to lay unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?
- Why do you think said unnecessary and ineffective restrictions do not qualify as infringements?
- What rational reason to the law abiding have to accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on their rights?

You're not listening. Shut up.

Or what? You'll cry?

Fact is, you know you cannot DEMONSTRATE the necessity and efficacy of the restrictions you seek to place on the law abiding

And so, my questions stand:
- Why do you want to lay unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?
- Why do you think said unnecessary and ineffective restrictions do not qualify as infringements?
- What rational reason to the law abiding have to accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on their rights?

 

[sealybobo]

Your cartoon misses the point you stupid fucker The caption should read, "you shot 26 children. We have got to do something about semi auto guns and magazines that carry more than 10 rounds.
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people, including 20 children between six and seven years old, and six adult staff members.

If Adam Lanza had a pump-action shotgun that held just 4 rounds, he could and would have killed the same number of people.
Why do you support unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?

No he wouldn't. He wouldn't have even come close to 26 murders you lying stupid mother fucker.

 

[M14 Shooter]

When you pass common sense gun legislation.

There's no sense of any kind to be found in any of the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you want to lay on the law abiding.

But they aren't unnecessary and ineffective. They aren't unnecessary and ineffective. THey aren't!!!

Oh look - a tantrum!
Good to see you're in touch with your inner 4-yr old.

Shut the fuck up dummy.

Or what- you'll cry?
Fact is, you know you cannot DEMONSTRATE the necessity and efficacy of the restrictions you seek to place on the law abiding

 

[sealybobo]

The goal is to limit the number of victims.

Nothing you want to do will accomplish this.
Why do you want to lay unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?
Why do you think said unnecessary and ineffective restrictions do not qualify as infringements?
What rational reason to the law abiding have to accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on their rights?

I told you they aren't unnecessary or ineffective.

You "telling" me this means nothing, other than you know you cannot DEMONSTRATE their necessity and efficacy.
And so, my questions stand:
- Why do you want to lay unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?
- Why do you think said unnecessary and ineffective restrictions do not qualify as infringements?
- What rational reason to the law abiding have to accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on their rights?

You're not listening. Shut up.

Or what? You'll cry?

Fact is, you know you cannot DEMONSTRATE the necessity and efficacy of the restrictions you seek to place on the law abiding

And so, my questions stand:
- Why do you want to lay unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?
- Why do you think said unnecessary and ineffective restrictions do not qualify as infringements?
- What rational reason to the law abiding have to accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on their rights?

If I showed you all you would do is come back with another post that says something about unnecessary and ineffective .

When the regulations we will pass are necessary and effective.

If you can kill just as many with a pump action why do you care? unnecessary and ineffective

unnecessary and ineffective

unnecessary and ineffective

And you never answered my question. Should I be allowed to carry a weapon that can kill 100 people with 1 pull of the trigger? How about 1000? So then you are an unreasonable gun nut. I hope this costs you the 2020 election you cock suckers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your cartoon misses the point you stupid fucker The caption should read, "you shot 26 children. We have got to do something about semi auto guns and magazines that carry more than 10 rounds.
The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people, including 20 children between six and seven years old, and six adult staff members.

If Adam Lanza had a pump-action shotgun that held just 4 rounds, he could and would have killed the same number of people.
Why do you support unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?

No he wouldn't. He wouldn't have even come close to 26 murders

Lanza killed 26 people over the course of 6 minutes.
What makes you think he could not have done the same with a pump-action shotgun that holds 4 rounds?

 

[M14 Shooter]

If I showed you all you would do is come back with another post that says something about unnecessary and ineffective

Try me.
DEMONSTRATE the necessity and efficacy of the restrictions you seek to place on the law abiding

And then, when you can't, answer the questions:
- Why do you want to lay unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?
- Why do you think said unnecessary and ineffective restrictions do not qualify as infringements?
- What rational reason to the law abiding have to accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on their rights?


.

 

[sealybobo]

When you pass common sense gun legislation.

There's no sense of any kind to be found in any of the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you want to lay on the law abiding.

But they aren't unnecessary and ineffective. They aren't unnecessary and ineffective. THey aren't!!!

Oh look - a tantrum!
Good to see you're in touch with your inner 4-yr old.

Shut the fuck up dummy.

Or what- you'll cry?
Fact is, you know you cannot DEMONSTRATE the necessity and efficacy of the restrictions you seek to place on the law abiding

Can you demonstrate that you can do as much damage with a 5 shot pump action shotgun as you can with a semi auto that carries 20 rounds? No you can't? Then my restrictions are necessary and effective in lowering the number of murder/death/kills those liberals are committing.

Yes, my goal is to take the guns out of the hands of liberal nuts. You right wing wack jobs can keep your guns. All you do is play with them in the basement anyways worrying about the day the government comes to take them away.

I love how you guys stimulate the economy every time a liberal president is elected. The NRA is hoping Kamala or Bernie or Warren win next year.

'Democrats Are Good For Gun Sales': Guess What Happened After Trump's Election

But since his election and in the early months of his presidency, Trump has not been good for the gun business.

Shares of publicly traded firearms companies have fallen.

In the gun industry, politics and fear matter. Over the last two years, there was plenty of both to go around amid terror attacks and school shootings. And, of course, there was the presidential race, which Hillary Clinton was heavily favored to win.

Guns and ammunition sold fast. The FBI processed a record number of background checks on potential gun buyers in 2016. (Background checks are considered the best available proxy for gun purchases since overall sales numbers are not made public.)

Analysts say when gun purchases quickly spike a clear connection can be made to fear, politics, or both. Buyers snap up firearms when politicians respond to those events by calling for stronger gun control. And sales are higher with a Democrat in the White House is in position to pick Supreme Court justices.