Another horrendous school shooting....What will the Left do NOW?

[TNHarley]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

And don't be stupid and say something like "Gun control is not a game" (in your PeeWee Herman voice)...it's a metaphor.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.
It's not a game so stop using that as a metaphor. This is not a contest. It's not about compromise, it's about trying everything that might work. You sound like you belong among the worthless in Congress. Go get you there and remain silent, as usual, spouting your excuses about "fair deals."

Actually, one could argue it IS about getting you statists to shut the fuck up.

 

[otto105]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

And don't be stupid and say something like "Gun control is not a game" (in your PeeWee Herman voice)...it's a metaphor.

Yeah know, maybe if you pro-gun people would stop shooting people the problem would settle down. But like an alcoholic you just can’t resist another round.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.
It's not a game so stop using that as a metaphor. This is not a contest. It's not about compromise, it's about trying everything that might work. You sound like you belong among the worthless in Congress. Go get you there and remain silent, as usual, spouting your excuses about "fair deals."

And yet you offer .....nothing except more knee-jerking

Your gibberish is expected of the Gun Grabber crowd

 

[TNHarley]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

something that would probably be easily substantiated if rightwingnuts would lift the ban against the CDC studying gun deaths.

Why do you think the CDC should study gun deaths?

It kills a lot of people every year. Many less die of the flu and we go after that extensively.

Why have the CDC study gun deaths?

 

[OldLady]

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

I see your point. And whether the argument is old or not is irrelevant if it's a vital issue like the 2nd Amendment.
And doing nothing is unfortunately also a bad idea.
2nd Amendment rights must be protected.....not always eroded.

The argument that giving up a pound more liberty for an ounce of security is dangerous and is also a very valid argument.

The UK has no 2nd Amendment and FAR fewer guns, yet they have not only a dramatic rise in crime, but also gun related violence.
How long do you think it will be before the UK has a mass shooting at one of it's schools? I say it will be within a year. We'll see.

So let them argue their talking points.....the Pro 2nd Amendment side needs to voice it's own arguments and demands.

You say that the UK has a dramatic rise in crime and gun related violence, and yet you provide no link. Show us.

He's been reading 2AGuy's threads. One crime at a time. LOL

 

[jillian]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

something that would probably be easily substantiated if rightwingnuts would lift the ban against the CDC studying gun deaths.

Why do you think the CDC should study gun deaths?

why do you think they shouldn't?

 

[otto105]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

And don't be stupid and say something like "Gun control is not a game" (in your PeeWee Herman voice)...it's a metaphor.

That’s a terrible idea and not how the world works. Just stick to your argument that the massacre of children is nothing more than a small price to pay for gun rights.

Did restricting guns in Australia stop mass shootings after 1996?

 

[jillian]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

something that would probably be easily substantiated if rightwingnuts would lift the ban against the CDC studying gun deaths.

Why do you think the CDC should study gun deaths?

It kills a lot of people every year. Many less die of the flu and we go after that extensively.

Why have the CDC study gun deaths?

why wouldn't they?

they study auto deaths

Crash Deaths in the US: Where We Stand

that's their job.

but gun nuts are afraid they'll be able to pinpoint specific trends and gun nuts don't like that. it isn't what the NRA pays for

 

[OldLady]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

something that would probably be easily substantiated if rightwingnuts would lift the ban against the CDC studying gun deaths.

Why do you think the CDC should study gun deaths?

It kills a lot of people every year. Many less die of the flu and we go after that extensively.

Why have the CDC study gun deaths?

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.
It's not a game so stop using that as a metaphor. This is not a contest. It's not about compromise, it's about trying everything that might work. You sound like you belong among the worthless in Congress. Go get you there and remain silent, as usual, spouting your excuses about "fair deals."

And yet you offer .....nothing except more knee-jerking

Your gibberish is expected of the Gun Grabber crowd

I'd offer a lot of ideas if you had any intention of listening. Gun control alone won't solve anything.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Same reason AL Gore shouldn't be climate Czar

 

[OldLady]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

something that would probably be easily substantiated if rightwingnuts would lift the ban against the CDC studying gun deaths.

Why do you think the CDC should study gun deaths?

It kills a lot of people every year. Many less die of the flu and we go after that extensively.

Why have the CDC study gun deaths?

Are you saying because it's not a disease, they should stay out of it?
If not the CDC, who?

 

[TNHarley]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

something that would probably be easily substantiated if rightwingnuts would lift the ban against the CDC studying gun deaths.

Why do you think the CDC should study gun deaths?

why do you think they shouldn't?

Why do you think they should?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe.

Tip leads to seizure of drugs, AK-47 at Fayetteville home :: WRAL.com

During a search of the home, officers found 4.5 units of oxycodone, 17 units of Adderall, 125 grams of marijuana, an AK-47, two handguns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and drug paraphernalia, police said.

So we restrict all the LAWFUL gun owners from getting guns, but what can your government GUARANTEE that illegal guns can stop crossing the southern border? I mean you guys don't want a wall, and want those who just want to do jobs some Americans wont do, but those like MS-13 will go out of their way to kill US, and like the 39 times the police were called and the FBI was notified the school shooting still happened. I will rely on my own self and my God given abilities to protect my self and my own family and not rely on some government failure to allow such shootings.

Liberal compassion ends up killing people...

The real reason why liberals want US citizens disarmed, is to they can come take our stuff and rape our women.. That is the real reason and without weapons, we cant stop them. Liberalism is EVIL...

 

[TNHarley]

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

something that would probably be easily substantiated if rightwingnuts would lift the ban against the CDC studying gun deaths.

Why do you think the CDC should study gun deaths?

It kills a lot of people every year. Many less die of the flu and we go after that extensively.

Why have the CDC study gun deaths?

why wouldn't they?

they study auto deaths

Crash Deaths in the US: Where We Stand

that's their job.

but gun nuts are afraid they'll be able to pinpoint specific trends and gun nuts don't like that. it isn't what the NRA pays for

Specific trends? What do you mean?

 

[miketx]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

And don't be stupid and say something like "Gun control is not a game" (in your PeeWee Herman voice)...it's a metaphor.

Yeah know, maybe if you pro-gun people would stop shooting people the problem would settle down. But like an alcoholic you just can’t resist another round.

Most mass shooting are done by your kind. Just look at the scum bag that shoot the republicans at the ball game. The Vegas massacre, at a conservation religious concert. Yep liberal scum are what should be banned. I've own guns all my life and since I have shot anyone I must be doing something wrong.

 

[miketx]

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

something that would probably be easily substantiated if rightwingnuts would lift the ban against the CDC studying gun deaths.

Why do you think the CDC should study gun deaths?

It kills a lot of people every year. Many less die of the flu and we go after that extensively.

Why have the CDC study gun deaths?

why wouldn't they?

they study auto deaths

Crash Deaths in the US: Where We Stand

that's their job.

but gun nuts are afraid they'll be able to pinpoint specific trends and gun nuts don't like that. it isn't what the NRA pays for

The trend being a liberal butt-stain off his meds shoots up a school.

 

[otto105]

After the dust settles from the last one.....and all the Gun Grabbers and the Left media have marched, screamed and protested....and after the 2nd Amendment side suffers even more restrictions......

What next?

Do you think the Left will EVER concede there are enough laws on the books?

We ALL know that no matter what, even if ALL guns were totally confiscated, that school shootings will never be completely eradicated by Gun Control measures.

We also know that the Left RESISTS any suggestion that we need to focus on the human factor.

So how many "Inches" do we surrender after every shooting to Gun Grabbers?

Inches make Feet and Feet make Miles. If they get a few inches after EVERY incident, it won't be long before they've achieved their goals.

I propose that for ANY and EVERY concession made to Gun Grabbers, an equal or better concession MUST be made to lawful and law abiding gun owners.

For example, IF the Pro-Gun side allows the age restriction to be raised, then the Anti-Gun side Must agree to no limits on magazine size.

If the Pro Gun side agrees to more stringent background checks, the Left MUST agree (in written law) that states like California CANNOT write their own anti-gun laws.

We cannot continue to give give give without concessions from the other side. Who the hell in their right mind would ever agree to a strategy like that and have any hope of staying in the game?

Claiming the left thinks they can prevent all shootings is a straw man argument. What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe. But that's a harder argument for you to win, so you rather revert to this old chestnut.

What they do claim is that restricting guns would probably make the frequency go down and more then likely the damage done when these attacks do happen will be less severe.

Tip leads to seizure of drugs, AK-47 at Fayetteville home :: WRAL.com

During a search of the home, officers found 4.5 units of oxycodone, 17 units of Adderall, 125 grams of marijuana, an AK-47, two handguns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition and drug paraphernalia, police said.

So we restrict all the LAWFUL gun owners from getting guns, but what can your government GUARANTEE that illegal guns can stop crossing the southern border? I mean you guys don't want a wall, and want those who just want to do jobs some Americans wont do, but those like MS-13 will go out of their way to kill US, and like the 39 times the police were called and the FBI was notified the school shooting still happened. I will rely on my own self and my God given abilities to protect my self and my own family and not rely on some government failure to allow such shootings.

Liberal compassion ends up killing people...

The real reason why liberals want US citizens disarmed, is to they can come take our stuff and rape our women.. That is the real reason and without weapons, we cant stop them. Liberalism is EVIL...

Rape our women?


What are you a freaking Neanderthal?

 

[Rambunctious]

If heads don't roll at the FBI this whole fucking thing is a big waste of time and effort...The FBI is where the nations ire needs to be aimed....

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

You gun grabbers have no clue.

As an avid supporter of the 2nd, I am not an avid supporter of the NRA.
Although my support will increase in relation the the attacks on the 2nd.
I actually think being able to purchase an AR15 at age 18 is probably not a good idea.

What I DON'T want is a constant impairment or infringement of the 2nd for law abiding citizens who are capable of responsibly handling them.
Calling for Magazine limits across the board is knee-jerk. It depends on WHO has them.

If you understood the Constitution (and more importantly HISTORY), you would understand the position of most who defend the 2nd Amendment vigorously. It's about human dignity and prevention of suffering on a scale FAR more massive than all school shootings in history combined.

But if you believe government should have authority over every aspect of personal lives, then you probably see the 2nd as getting in the way.

 

[otto105]

something that would probably be easily substantiated if rightwingnuts would lift the ban against the CDC studying gun deaths.

Why do you think the CDC should study gun deaths?

It kills a lot of people every year. Many less die of the flu and we go after that extensively.

Why have the CDC study gun deaths?

why wouldn't they?

they study auto deaths

Crash Deaths in the US: Where We Stand

that's their job.

but gun nuts are afraid they'll be able to pinpoint specific trends and gun nuts don't like that. it isn't what the NRA pays for

The trend being a liberal butt-stain off his meds shoots up a school.

Sorry, nick Cruz was a white identity wingnut.

He hated Jews, Blacks, world banking...ya know the same stuff you do.