Florida high school students stage second amendment support walkout

[2aguy]

We have always known how. The supposed "idea was to track the guns. The problem being there was no effort to actually track the guns from point of source to cartel. .

I'm not saying it was a good plan, just that it was a plan. It was enough of a problem that they tried to figure out how it was happening. You can disagree with the tactics, but the goal was to figure out how US guns end up in Mexican cartels, and there's really no better way to figure that out than by trying to trace guns on their way there. If you have a better idea, I'd love to hear it.

There was no attempt at a chain of evidence. It was a farce. it was merely an effort to flood the cartels with US weapons so that the obummer admin could scream "we have to ban guns in america so that the mexicans won't get killed by them".

Will you stop with these whackadoo conspiracy theories. Firstly, the program started with Bush the Dumber, not Obama. Secondly, you may disagree with the tactics, but the goal was to find out how US guns end up in Mexican cartels.

No....Fast and Furious was a completely different program from the Bush era "Wide Receiver" program......they ended Wide Reciever when they lost control of a few of the guns.......Fast and Furious lost control of aboutr 3,000 guns..

 

[Marion Morrison]

You talk miles of bullshit without anything to back it up, fuck off, Mr. WolfTickets.

I did back it up, right here dingus:

'Hot' Guns Fueling Crime, US Study Says
Guns are a top target for home burglars looking for something they can easily sell on the street.

An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice.

"Any burglar that goes in a house and finds guns, their eyes are going to light up," says former ATF Assistant Director Mike Bouchard. "That's the first thing they're going to take."

The statistics for commercial thefts show that nearly 25,000 guns per year are lost or stolen ​

A) prove that 230K guns are stolen in the US every year.

See above.

Here's a link that says different:GUN WATCH: How Many Guns are Stolen and Destroyed each Year?

Actually, your link doesn't say that. It doesn't say anything other than "Their study shows 145 thousand victimizations involving the theft of a firearm in 2010. As more than one firearm is averaged for each theft, the study notes that an average of 232,000 guns were stolen in each year from 2005 to 2010. This is consistent with the NCIC numbers"

THAT'S FROM YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK which is exactly what I said!

LOL!

So my question is; are you too fucking lazy or stupid to know what you're posting?

"The statistics for commercial thefts show that nearly 25,000 guns per year are lost or stolen "



Whoah there, wtf ever you are! That's a tenfold increase, wtf is going on here? Can you pin it down to a number or no?

 

[2aguy]

We have always known how. The supposed "idea was to track the guns. The problem being there was no effort to actually track the guns from point of source to cartel. .

I'm not saying it was a good plan, just that it was a plan. It was enough of a problem that they tried to figure out how it was happening. You can disagree with the tactics, but the goal was to figure out how US guns end up in Mexican cartels, and there's really no better way to figure that out than by trying to trace guns on their way there. If you have a better idea, I'd love to hear it.

There was no attempt at a chain of evidence. It was a farce. it was merely an effort to flood the cartels with US weapons so that the obummer admin could scream "we have to ban guns in america so that the mexicans won't get killed by them".

Will you stop with these whackadoo conspiracy theories. Firstly, the program started with Bush the Dumber, not Obama. Secondly, you may disagree with the tactics, but the goal was to find out how US guns end up in Mexican cartels.

Fast and Furious was not the Bush Era Wide Receiver operation...

Reasoned Politics: Wide Receiver vs. Fast and Furious

Let’s compare the two programs:

Cooperation with Mexico:
Wide Receiver: Mexican Law Enforcement notified, Mexico consented and was a full partner.
Fast and Furious: Mexico intentionally kept in the dark. No coordination or consent.

Surveillance of Firearms:
Wide Receiver: Agents attempted to keep track of the guns at all times.
Fast and Furious: Agents were ordered not to track the guns after they were purchased.

Use of Tracking Devices:
Wide Receiver: Extensive – placed in every lot of guns purchased
Fast and Furious: One “agent built” device in one gun

Performance of Tracking Devices:
Wide Receiver: Smugglers figured out how to defeat trackers
Fast and Furious: Smugglers didn’t have to do anything

Number of Firearms Sent to Cartels:
Wide Receiver: About 250
Fast and Furious: Exact number unknown, but over 2,500

Actions at the Border:
Wide Receiver: Attempted to hand off surveillance to Mexican law enforcement
Fast and Furious: ATF worked with Customs to make sure guns were not stopped at border

Reaction to guns “getting away”:
Wide Receiver: Program terminated. William Newell wrote memo saying “never again”
Fast and Furious: Program continued – recovered guns tracked and mapped.

Ironically, Wide Receiver provides an excellent example of a truly “botched sting operation”. The purpose of the Bush era programs was to track the guns to and over the border where Mexican law enforcement would make arrests. It was poorly planned and executed – but it at least has some potential to work and serve a law enforcement purpose. Make no mistake – Wide Receiver should result in heads rolling – but the program was not designed to send guns to the cartels.

Another point: Since the Phoenix ATF had experience with this kind of operation, why would they think that a program with many less safeguards would ever work?Why was such an operation begun with months of President Obama taking office and immediately after their bogus numbers on US retail sourced guns going to Mexico were exposed as false? Sadly, the answer is obvious.

In contrast, Fast and Furious was designed to pump guns into Mexico, without the knowledge of the Mexican government. Without their knowledge and cooperation, their was no chance of making arrests as a result of allowing guns to cross the border. Therefore, there was no law enforcement purpose. It was designed and executed for the purpose of sending guns from US retail outlets to the cartels. It was not a “botched sting operation” – it was a correctly executed plan with a very evil purpose.

This begs the question: What was the purpose of sending these guns into Mexico, where they were used to kill hundreds of Mexicans?

If one looks at what this could accomplish, the only answer on the table is the same one named by both the whistle blowing agents and the former head of the Pheonix DEA office who was “in the loop”: The passage of new gun control laws in the US.

 

[Marion Morrison]

After a ban, I guess from illegal sources.

You guess? So you don't know. This is exactly my point; you don't give this any thought because you're a lazy person. How can you say this when you're admitting you're just guessing?

What a terrible bullshitter you are.

Good god, you must be the lamest poster on here. HEARD OF PROHIBITION? Ya think the country was really dry?

Wake the fuck up.

I know where a speakeasy is to this day.

 

[Pop23]

I'm not sure where this theory is coming from. I've known plenty of teens and young adults on ADHD and antidepressant medication and they weren't homicidal at all. Sometimes doctors attempt to medicate severe behavior problems that should probably be institutionalized for awhile, and maybe that makes it seem that people on medication go nuts. But I think it's more likely that the "nuts" just won out in those cases.

No ones making it up:

Antidepressants Are a Prescription for Mass Shootings – Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR

From the link:

Subsequently, mass shootings and other violent incidents started to be reported. More often than not, the common denominator was that the shooters were on an antidepressant, or withdrawing from one. This is not about an isolated incident or two but numerous shootings. The question is, during the past twenty years is the use of antidepressants here a coincidence or a causation?

There have been too many mass shootings for it just to be a coincidence. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed twelve students and a teacher at Columbine High School. Eric was on Luvox, an antidepressant. The Virginia Tech shooter killed thirty-two people and he was on an antidepressant. While withdrawing from Prozac, Kip Kinkel murdered his mother and stepmother. He then shot twenty-two classmates and killed two. Jason Hoffman wounded five at his high school while he was on Effexor, also an antidepressant. James Holmes opened fire in a Colorado movie theater this past summer and killed twelve people and wounded fifty-eight. He was under the care of a psychiatrist but no information has been released as to what drug he must have been on.

Psychiatrists generally will tell you that these people were mentally ill and they weren’t treated in time or didn’t get enough help to prevent the tragedy. However, Dr. Peter Breggin, who is a psychiatrist, stated that depression rarely leads to violence and that it’s only since the SSRI’s came on the market that such mass shootings have taken place.

In a study of thirty-one drugs that are disproportionately linked to reports of violence toward others, five of the top ten are antidepressants. These are Prozac, Paxil, Luvox, Effexor and Pristiq. Two other drugs that are for treating ADHD are also in the top ten which means these are being given to children who could then become violent. One could conclude from this study alone that antidepressants cause both suicidal thoughts and violent behavior. This is a prescription for mass shootings.

No one can talk their way out of explaining how a person who is previously non-violent and given antidepressants suddenly becomes violent or suicidal. There are multiple cases of children who have committed suicide days after starting to take an antidepressant. In a YouTube video, various parents tell their story about what the antidepressants did to their kids.


My Son came to live with us when he was 15. He was on ADHA meds and was a complete basket case. Angry was not even close to the word anyone would use. Our Doctor weened him from them and within months he became a model young man.

I actually could have seen him go off half cocked one day. If he had been bullied during that time, all bets would have been off.

I understand where you're coming from now, Pop. It is absolutely true that those drugs can have side effects including suicidal/homicidal just-plain-nuts behavior. I saw it happen a couple of times to teen clients that had been switched to one of those anti depressants from the recommended one due to cost (Medicaid didn't want to pay for it). Every psychiatrist who has spoken about school shootings references the common denominator of depresssion; that's no secret and everyone is aware of it. Suicide and homicide are two sides of the same coin. I don't necessarily think the meds alone are the cause, though. The meds are present, if they are present, in an attempt to address the depression or behavior (trauma often manifests as ADHD) and it didn't work. When someone dies of cancer, they have chemo in their system, but the chemo didn't cause the death. You see what I mean?
If Cruz, Lanza and the Columbine shooters were on meds, please link to that.

Yet, per the link, depression rarely causes violence. I think when you medicate a young, not fully developed brain, and that brain is affixed to someone undergoing years of bullying, you then have a recipe for murder.

For all the uproar, there have been how many school shootings involving teens? Three in ten years? Quite rare, I'd say.
Were Cruz, Lanza and the Columbine shooters on meds or coming off meds?

Yes. So why do you wanna take away everybody's guns OldLady ?

What kind of fuckery is this?

I don’t blame anyone for spouting a party line. It’s what this place does to a person, but at least oldlady engages in honest debate more than most.

That is appreciated and respected.

 

[Marion Morrison]

No ones making it up:

Antidepressants Are a Prescription for Mass Shootings – Citizens Commission on Human Rights, CCHR

From the link:

Subsequently, mass shootings and other violent incidents started to be reported. More often than not, the common denominator was that the shooters were on an antidepressant, or withdrawing from one. This is not about an isolated incident or two but numerous shootings. The question is, during the past twenty years is the use of antidepressants here a coincidence or a causation?

There have been too many mass shootings for it just to be a coincidence. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed twelve students and a teacher at Columbine High School. Eric was on Luvox, an antidepressant. The Virginia Tech shooter killed thirty-two people and he was on an antidepressant. While withdrawing from Prozac, Kip Kinkel murdered his mother and stepmother. He then shot twenty-two classmates and killed two. Jason Hoffman wounded five at his high school while he was on Effexor, also an antidepressant. James Holmes opened fire in a Colorado movie theater this past summer and killed twelve people and wounded fifty-eight. He was under the care of a psychiatrist but no information has been released as to what drug he must have been on.

Psychiatrists generally will tell you that these people were mentally ill and they weren’t treated in time or didn’t get enough help to prevent the tragedy. However, Dr. Peter Breggin, who is a psychiatrist, stated that depression rarely leads to violence and that it’s only since the SSRI’s came on the market that such mass shootings have taken place.

In a study of thirty-one drugs that are disproportionately linked to reports of violence toward others, five of the top ten are antidepressants. These are Prozac, Paxil, Luvox, Effexor and Pristiq. Two other drugs that are for treating ADHD are also in the top ten which means these are being given to children who could then become violent. One could conclude from this study alone that antidepressants cause both suicidal thoughts and violent behavior. This is a prescription for mass shootings.

No one can talk their way out of explaining how a person who is previously non-violent and given antidepressants suddenly becomes violent or suicidal. There are multiple cases of children who have committed suicide days after starting to take an antidepressant. In a YouTube video, various parents tell their story about what the antidepressants did to their kids.


My Son came to live with us when he was 15. He was on ADHA meds and was a complete basket case. Angry was not even close to the word anyone would use. Our Doctor weened him from them and within months he became a model young man.

I actually could have seen him go off half cocked one day. If he had been bullied during that time, all bets would have been off.

I understand where you're coming from now, Pop. It is absolutely true that those drugs can have side effects including suicidal/homicidal just-plain-nuts behavior. I saw it happen a couple of times to teen clients that had been switched to one of those anti depressants from the recommended one due to cost (Medicaid didn't want to pay for it). Every psychiatrist who has spoken about school shootings references the common denominator of depresssion; that's no secret and everyone is aware of it. Suicide and homicide are two sides of the same coin. I don't necessarily think the meds alone are the cause, though. The meds are present, if they are present, in an attempt to address the depression or behavior (trauma often manifests as ADHD) and it didn't work. When someone dies of cancer, they have chemo in their system, but the chemo didn't cause the death. You see what I mean?
If Cruz, Lanza and the Columbine shooters were on meds, please link to that.

Yet, per the link, depression rarely causes violence. I think when you medicate a young, not fully developed brain, and that brain is affixed to someone undergoing years of bullying, you then have a recipe for murder.

For all the uproar, there have been how many school shootings involving teens? Three in ten years? Quite rare, I'd say.
Were Cruz, Lanza and the Columbine shooters on meds or coming off meds?

Yes. So why do you wanna take away everybody's guns OldLady ?

What kind of fuckery is this?

I don’t blame anyone for spouting a party line. It’s what this place does to a person, but at least oldlady engages in honest debate more than most.

That is appreciated and respected.

Except when it comes to the 2nd amendment, then she goes off into wackadoodle land.

 

[Flopper]

I've already addressed that

No you haven't. Not at all. Not even close. Not one word.

From ABC News, January 25th, 2013:

'Hot' Guns Fueling Crime, US Study Says
An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice.​

This is your argument and you've produced so far zero links. It's your time to do some research to back up your argument, boy chick

I've done the research, it's you who lacks any research skills.

Here's the derps problem.

He thinks getting rid of legal ownership will somehow limit those with criminal intent from getting guns.

Do you realize Derp (and god that is an incredibly appropriate name), that there actually are manufacturers outside the united states? and that criminals really don't care if they follow import/export laws. And you do know that just about any highly trained machinist can make a really good gun. Hell, soon you'll be able to 3D print a reasonably lethal gun.

Give it a rest boy, my ribs are aching from the laughter you're providing.

The 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths would certain be reduced substantially by limiting the availability of firearms. The drug cartels, career criminals, and deranged mass murders would certainly find ways to arm themselves. However these people are not responsible for most of the gun violence.

The 22,000 suicide victims, the accidents and the shootings in fits of rage or under emotional stress would certainly be reduced considerable with less firearms.

No matter what this nation does with gun laws, people will still get shot, but it can certainly be reduced significantly if the nation is willing to restrict the availability of guns.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I've already addressed that

No you haven't. Not at all. Not even close. Not one word.

From ABC News, January 25th, 2013:

'Hot' Guns Fueling Crime, US Study Says
An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice.​

This is your argument and you've produced so far zero links. It's your time to do some research to back up your argument, boy chick

I've done the research, it's you who lacks any research skills.

Here's the derps problem.

He thinks getting rid of legal ownership will somehow limit those with criminal intent from getting guns.

Do you realize Derp (and god that is an incredibly appropriate name), that there actually are manufacturers outside the united states? and that criminals really don't care if they follow import/export laws. And you do know that just about any highly trained machinist can make a really good gun. Hell, soon you'll be able to 3D print a reasonably lethal gun.

Give it a rest boy, my ribs are aching from the laughter you're providing.

The 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths would certain be reduced substantially by limiting the availability of firearms. The drug cartels, career criminals, and deranged mass murders would certainly find ways to arm themselves. However these people are not responsible for most of the gun violence.

The 22,000 suicide victims, the accidents and the shootings in fits of rage or under emotional stress would certainly be reduced considerable with less firearms.

No matter what this nation does with gun laws, people will still get shot, but it can certainly be reduced significantly if the nation is willing to restrict the availability of guns.

Nice try to be a moderate cajoling faggot, GFY.

I want full-auto and small-caliber machine gun access now, for everybody. PS: Everyone should open-carry, too.

All I have is 5 rounds to stop someone who would do me harm. After that, I have 5 rounds more, that ain't no witty bitty AR type bullets there, wherever it hits you, well, you're probably gonna die.

I speak from the real side of things.

 

[Pop23]

I've already addressed that

No you haven't. Not at all. Not even close. Not one word.

From ABC News, January 25th, 2013:

'Hot' Guns Fueling Crime, US Study Says
An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice.​

This is your argument and you've produced so far zero links. It's your time to do some research to back up your argument, boy chick

I've done the research, it's you who lacks any research skills.

Here's the derps problem.

He thinks getting rid of legal ownership will somehow limit those with criminal intent from getting guns.

Do you realize Derp (and god that is an incredibly appropriate name), that there actually are manufacturers outside the united states? and that criminals really don't care if they follow import/export laws. And you do know that just about any highly trained machinist can make a really good gun. Hell, soon you'll be able to 3D print a reasonably lethal gun.

Give it a rest boy, my ribs are aching from the laughter you're providing.

The 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths would certain be reduced substantially by limiting the availability of firearms. The drug cartels, career criminals, and deranged mass murders would certainly find ways to arm themselves. However these people are not responsible for most of the gun violence.

The 22,000 suicide victims, the accidents and the shootings in fits of rage or under emotional stress would certainly be reduced considerable with less firearms.

No matter what this nation does with gun laws, people will still get shot, but it can certainly be reduced significantly if the nation is willing to restrict the availability of guns.

Ban anything and you reduce their risks. So?

Ban cars, or reduce their top speed to 20 and you reduce deaths to nearly zero.

The point is, a murderous animal doesn’t care what the tool is, they simply want to kill. And there are far more effective ways to kill then an AR.

 

[Flopper]

I've already addressed that

No you haven't. Not at all. Not even close. Not one word.

From ABC News, January 25th, 2013:

'Hot' Guns Fueling Crime, US Study Says
An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice.​

This is your argument and you've produced so far zero links. It's your time to do some research to back up your argument, boy chick

I've done the research, it's you who lacks any research skills.

Here's the derps problem.

He thinks getting rid of legal ownership will somehow limit those with criminal intent from getting guns.

Do you realize Derp (and god that is an incredibly appropriate name), that there actually are manufacturers outside the united states? and that criminals really don't care if they follow import/export laws. And you do know that just about any highly trained machinist can make a really good gun. Hell, soon you'll be able to 3D print a reasonably lethal gun.

Give it a rest boy, my ribs are aching from the laughter you're providing.

The 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths would certain be reduced substantially by limiting the availability of firearms. The drug cartels, career criminals, and deranged mass murders would certainly find ways to arm themselves. However these people are not responsible for most of the gun violence.

The 22,000 suicide victims, the accidents and the shootings in fits of rage or under emotional stress would certainly be reduced considerable with less firearms.

No matter what this nation does with gun laws, people will still get shot, but it can certainly be reduced significantly if the nation is willing to restrict the availability of guns.

Ban anything and you reduce their risks. So?

Ban cars, or reduce their top speed to 20 and you reduce deaths to nearly zero.

The point is, a murderous animal doesn’t care what the tool is, they simply want to kill. And there are far more effective ways to kill then an AR.

The most appropriate gun depends on the target and location.

In general, guns are very effective ways to kill. That's what they are designed to do. They are easily available, relatively easy to use, and don't require the skills of knife fighting, marital arts, or bomb making. The gun is the perfect weapon for the weak of body and mind and the coward. It is the perfect weapon for killing unarmed children and adults from close up to far away.

 

[Contumacious]

I've already addressed that

No you haven't. Not at all. Not even close. Not one word.

From ABC News, January 25th, 2013:

'Hot' Guns Fueling Crime, US Study Says
An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice.​

This is your argument and you've produced so far zero links. It's your time to do some research to back up your argument, boy chick

I've done the research, it's you who lacks any research skills.

Here's the derps problem.

He thinks getting rid of legal ownership will somehow limit those with criminal intent from getting guns.

Do you realize Derp (and god that is an incredibly appropriate name), that there actually are manufacturers outside the united states? and that criminals really don't care if they follow import/export laws. And you do know that just about any highly trained machinist can make a really good gun. Hell, soon you'll be able to 3D print a reasonably lethal gun.

Give it a rest boy, my ribs are aching from the laughter you're providing.

The 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths would certain be reduced substantially by limiting the availability of firearms. The drug cartels, career criminals, and deranged mass murders would certainly find ways to arm themselves. However these people are not responsible for most of the gun violence.

The 22,000 suicide victims, the accidents and the shootings in fits of rage or under emotional stress would certainly be reduced considerable with less firearms.

No matter what this nation does with gun laws, people will still get shot, but it can certainly be reduced significantly if the nation is willing to restrict the availability of guns.

NAZI Germany , 6,000,000 Individuals gassed and incinerated by their duly elected government:

FUCK YOU

.

 

[westwall]

I've already addressed that

No you haven't. Not at all. Not even close. Not one word.

From ABC News, January 25th, 2013:

'Hot' Guns Fueling Crime, US Study Says
An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice.​

This is your argument and you've produced so far zero links. It's your time to do some research to back up your argument, boy chick

I've done the research, it's you who lacks any research skills.

Here's the derps problem.

He thinks getting rid of legal ownership will somehow limit those with criminal intent from getting guns.

Do you realize Derp (and god that is an incredibly appropriate name), that there actually are manufacturers outside the united states? and that criminals really don't care if they follow import/export laws. And you do know that just about any highly trained machinist can make a really good gun. Hell, soon you'll be able to 3D print a reasonably lethal gun.

Give it a rest boy, my ribs are aching from the laughter you're providing.

The 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths would certain be reduced substantially by limiting the availability of firearms. The drug cartels, career criminals, and deranged mass murders would certainly find ways to arm themselves. However these people are not responsible for most of the gun violence.

The 22,000 suicide victims, the accidents and the shootings in fits of rage or under emotional stress would certainly be reduced considerable with less firearms.

No matter what this nation does with gun laws, people will still get shot, but it can certainly be reduced significantly if the nation is willing to restrict the availability of guns.

How do reconcile the suicide claim with the knowledge that Japan has all the gun laws you want, and more, yet their suicide rate is far higher than ours?

 

[Humorme]

On Friday (March 30), a large group of students from Rockledge High School in Brevard County, Florida, staged a walkout to show their support of the second amendment and the right to bear arms, WFTV.com and Fox News reported.

Florida high school students stage second amendment support walkout

No one is protesting anyone's right to bear arms--including the March for life protesters. What they're protesting about is the right to own WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. AR-15's AK's etc. etc.

March for life protest March 20, 2018

Then they, as are you, missing a much larger picture.

Unless we come to grips with THE REASON these shootings are happening now, when they never did before, then banning every gun will not stop the bloodshed in schools.

But that takes thought and REAL action.......

And anyone who posts a meme, instead of actually contributing to a real discussion is beyond help.

Ban all the guns in the entire world. You don't think someone, hyped up on mood altering drugs, that had been bullied for years, and is hell bent on killing his enemies, simply won't jump in the largest truck he knows how to drive and mow his enemy down?

Hell, it would likely be far more effective at killing a larger number than any AR possibly could.

But go along your merry way, you likely like the idea of continued bloodshed.

Your let's fix the culture crap is a pile of You don't raise other peoples kids, you have no control over them, neither do teachers, staff, whomever.

Republicans have continually fought every single new gun regulation since they've come into power in 2010.

They have 10 mass murders on their watch. Aurora theater massacre, they did nothing. Virginia Tech, they did nothing. Sandy Hook, they did nothing. San Bernardino, CA, they did nothing, Orlando, Florida, they did nothing, Las Vegas, Nevada, they did nothing, Sutherland Springs, Texas they did nothing. Parkland, Florida, they did nothing. The only thing they'll do is talk about cultural issues & background of the murderer, give out their condolences and hold prayer vigils. That's all they ever do.

1. Republicans repealed the mental health background check that Obama initiated after Sandy Hook as soon as Trump walked into the Oval office.
Trump repeals an Obama regulation keeping guns from people with certain mental health conditions

2. Republicans wouldn't even put people who were on no fly lists and FBI terrorist watch lists on no gun lists, after Obama asked them too. Shortly thereafter, a terrorist who was on a watch list was able to walk into a gun store, load up and killed 49 people in a night club in Orlando, Florida.
Obama: It's 'insane' that people on the 'no-fly' list can buy guns - CNNPolitics
Orlando Gunman Was ‘Cool and Calm’ After Massacre, Police Say

3. Republicans in Colorado even refused to ban the bump stocks that were used in Las Vegas, Nevada. 58 people dead.
House Republicans shy away from action on “bump stocks,” hoping ATF deals with it – The Denver Post

It's because the NRA owns the Republican party.

The gun rights organization spent a stupendous $54.4 million in the 2016 election cycle, almost all of it in "independent expenditures," meaning spending for or against a candidate but not a direct contribution to a campaign. The money went almost entirely to Republicans to a degree that almost looks like a misprint (but isn't): Of independent expenditures totaling $52.6 million, Democrats received $265. Yes, that's 265 dollars.

'Thoughts and prayers' — and fistfuls of NRA money: Why America can't control guns

If you want common sense gun regulations in this country you'll have to vote for Democrats this coming November.

Such dishonesty! Read your own headlines:

.
Trump repeals an Obama regulation keeping guns from people with certain mental health conditions.

Obama would deny to anyone who ever saw a therapist the Right to keep and bear Arms. Now, only CERTAIN (i.e. dangerous people) can be denied.

As for bump stocks, it is purely political. IF the Republicans endorse it, they lose their support base... and over what? Aimed semi-auto fire is just as fast and semi auto fire is more accurate than bump stocks.

The balance of your post is equally misleading B.S. not worthy of addressing.

 

[kaz]

I've already addressed that

No you haven't. Not at all. Not even close. Not one word.

From ABC News, January 25th, 2013:

'Hot' Guns Fueling Crime, US Study Says
An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice.​

This is your argument and you've produced so far zero links. It's your time to do some research to back up your argument, boy chick

I've done the research, it's you who lacks any research skills.

Here's the derps problem.

He thinks getting rid of legal ownership will somehow limit those with criminal intent from getting guns.

Do you realize Derp (and god that is an incredibly appropriate name), that there actually are manufacturers outside the united states? and that criminals really don't care if they follow import/export laws. And you do know that just about any highly trained machinist can make a really good gun. Hell, soon you'll be able to 3D print a reasonably lethal gun.

Give it a rest boy, my ribs are aching from the laughter you're providing.

The 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths would certain be reduced substantially by limiting the availability of firearms. The drug cartels, career criminals, and deranged mass murders would certainly find ways to arm themselves. However these people are not responsible for most of the gun violence.

The 22,000 suicide victims, the accidents and the shootings in fits of rage or under emotional stress would certainly be reduced considerable with less firearms.

No matter what this nation does with gun laws, people will still get shot, but it can certainly be reduced significantly if the nation is willing to restrict the availability of guns.

You're making that up. The UK has far fewer guns and a suicide rate roughly equal to ours. People don't need a gun if they want to kill themselves, moron.

And that people wanting to kill themselves means you want to subject me to an inability to defend myself from a criminal is just grade a idocy

 

[kaz]

I've already addressed that

No you haven't. Not at all. Not even close. Not one word.

From ABC News, January 25th, 2013:

'Hot' Guns Fueling Crime, US Study Says
An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice.​

This is your argument and you've produced so far zero links. It's your time to do some research to back up your argument, boy chick

I've done the research, it's you who lacks any research skills.

Here's the derps problem.

He thinks getting rid of legal ownership will somehow limit those with criminal intent from getting guns.

Do you realize Derp (and god that is an incredibly appropriate name), that there actually are manufacturers outside the united states? and that criminals really don't care if they follow import/export laws. And you do know that just about any highly trained machinist can make a really good gun. Hell, soon you'll be able to 3D print a reasonably lethal gun.

Give it a rest boy, my ribs are aching from the laughter you're providing.

The 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths would certain be reduced substantially by limiting the availability of firearms. The drug cartels, career criminals, and deranged mass murders would certainly find ways to arm themselves. However these people are not responsible for most of the gun violence.

The 22,000 suicide victims, the accidents and the shootings in fits of rage or under emotional stress would certainly be reduced considerable with less firearms.

No matter what this nation does with gun laws, people will still get shot, but it can certainly be reduced significantly if the nation is willing to restrict the availability of guns.

Ban anything and you reduce their risks. So?

Ban cars, or reduce their top speed to 20 and you reduce deaths to nearly zero.

The point is, a murderous animal doesn’t care what the tool is, they simply want to kill. And there are far more effective ways to kill then an AR.

Flopper only cares about statistics that support what he wants to do anyway

 

[kaz]

I've already addressed that

No you haven't. Not at all. Not even close. Not one word.

From ABC News, January 25th, 2013:

'Hot' Guns Fueling Crime, US Study Says
An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice.​

This is your argument and you've produced so far zero links. It's your time to do some research to back up your argument, boy chick

I've done the research, it's you who lacks any research skills.

Here's the derps problem.

He thinks getting rid of legal ownership will somehow limit those with criminal intent from getting guns.

Do you realize Derp (and god that is an incredibly appropriate name), that there actually are manufacturers outside the united states? and that criminals really don't care if they follow import/export laws. And you do know that just about any highly trained machinist can make a really good gun. Hell, soon you'll be able to 3D print a reasonably lethal gun.

Give it a rest boy, my ribs are aching from the laughter you're providing.

The 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths would certain be reduced substantially by limiting the availability of firearms. The drug cartels, career criminals, and deranged mass murders would certainly find ways to arm themselves. However these people are not responsible for most of the gun violence.

The 22,000 suicide victims, the accidents and the shootings in fits of rage or under emotional stress would certainly be reduced considerable with less firearms.

No matter what this nation does with gun laws, people will still get shot, but it can certainly be reduced significantly if the nation is willing to restrict the availability of guns.

Ban anything and you reduce their risks. So?

Ban cars, or reduce their top speed to 20 and you reduce deaths to nearly zero.

The point is, a murderous animal doesn’t care what the tool is, they simply want to kill. And there are far more effective ways to kill then an AR.

The most appropriate gun depends on the target and location.

In general, guns are very effective ways to kill. That's what they are designed to do. They are easily available, relatively easy to use, and don't require the skills of knife fighting, marital arts, or bomb making. The gun is the perfect weapon for the weak of body and mind and the coward. It is the perfect weapon for killing unarmed children and adults from close up to far away.

It's the price of living in a free country. The Democrat party used to grasp that it's very difficult to stop a determined murderer in a free country. Since then, you all went bat shit crazy. Reality for you is a tiny dot in your rear view mirror

 

[kaz]

I've already addressed that

No you haven't. Not at all. Not even close. Not one word.

From ABC News, January 25th, 2013:

'Hot' Guns Fueling Crime, US Study Says
An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice.​

This is your argument and you've produced so far zero links. It's your time to do some research to back up your argument, boy chick

I've done the research, it's you who lacks any research skills.

Here's the derps problem.

He thinks getting rid of legal ownership will somehow limit those with criminal intent from getting guns.

Do you realize Derp (and god that is an incredibly appropriate name), that there actually are manufacturers outside the united states? and that criminals really don't care if they follow import/export laws. And you do know that just about any highly trained machinist can make a really good gun. Hell, soon you'll be able to 3D print a reasonably lethal gun.

Give it a rest boy, my ribs are aching from the laughter you're providing.

The 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths would certain be reduced substantially by limiting the availability of firearms. The drug cartels, career criminals, and deranged mass murders would certainly find ways to arm themselves. However these people are not responsible for most of the gun violence.

The 22,000 suicide victims, the accidents and the shootings in fits of rage or under emotional stress would certainly be reduced considerable with less firearms.

No matter what this nation does with gun laws, people will still get shot, but it can certainly be reduced significantly if the nation is willing to restrict the availability of guns.

How do reconcile the suicide claim with the knowledge that Japan has all the gun laws you want, and more, yet their suicide rate is far higher than ours?

It's a perk of being a leftist. He doesn't have to reconcile his views with reality

 

[JBond]

75 kids for 20 minutes

Yeah, well they spent their own money unlike your little "hero's" who had millions spent on them and their "protest". Sooooo, freedom loving kids vs billionaire supplied "useful idiots". I know who I support more.

They didn't even make their own signs. Total sham of a protest.

Yes, I agree the 200,000 who marched on Washington were a sham. Paid for by billionaires who want to disarm the PEOPLE of the USA so they can finally control them and make them the peasants they want them to be.

Nope those people made sure to get out their on their own. Several of my co-workers went, and no billionaire even had to pay them! It's your imagination, you poor, frightened creep

So why did they require millions of dollars and where did the money go?

These Celebrities Have Donated More Than $2 Million to Florida Students' Anti-Gun March

Students take charge of gun-safety movement with some help from existing groups

 

[JBond]

You want to give us a list of folks who contribute to the NRA?
Why is it any less acceptable for a gun control group to have big $ support when it is perfectly alright with you for the NRA to have it and use it to influence legislation. Well, you're finally going to have a little pushback, is all.

The NRA isn't working to undermine anyone else's rights or take away their property.

Sorry, Pete, but things have gone too far. Gun owners have got to realize that their freedoms are allowing murderous folk to own guns, too. It has to be dealt with; we can't ignore it any longer. The 2nd is not going to go away, but the way I see it, I have rights too, and so do the kids who have to walk to school each morning in certain neighborhoods of Chicago. Why is our safety so completely unimportant?

You don't give a fuck about crime. Libs never have. Liberals restrict law abiding citizens and want to prevent them from defending themselves. It is sick. Siding with criminals is pathetic. Suburbs of Chicago have outlawed all semi-auto weapons. Libs won in England and now the disarmed law abiding citizens are paying the price. So sad. Liberal policies fail time after time. Why do libs want more violence, more rape, more murder? Absolutely sickening.

 

[Pop23]

I've already addressed that

No you haven't. Not at all. Not even close. Not one word.

From ABC News, January 25th, 2013:

'Hot' Guns Fueling Crime, US Study Says
An estimated 230,000 guns per year are stolen in home burglaries and property crimes, according to a study by the Department of Justice.​

This is your argument and you've produced so far zero links. It's your time to do some research to back up your argument, boy chick

I've done the research, it's you who lacks any research skills.

Here's the derps problem.

He thinks getting rid of legal ownership will somehow limit those with criminal intent from getting guns.

Do you realize Derp (and god that is an incredibly appropriate name), that there actually are manufacturers outside the united states? and that criminals really don't care if they follow import/export laws. And you do know that just about any highly trained machinist can make a really good gun. Hell, soon you'll be able to 3D print a reasonably lethal gun.

Give it a rest boy, my ribs are aching from the laughter you're providing.

The 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries and 33,636 deaths would certain be reduced substantially by limiting the availability of firearms. The drug cartels, career criminals, and deranged mass murders would certainly find ways to arm themselves. However these people are not responsible for most of the gun violence.

The 22,000 suicide victims, the accidents and the shootings in fits of rage or under emotional stress would certainly be reduced considerable with less firearms.

No matter what this nation does with gun laws, people will still get shot, but it can certainly be reduced significantly if the nation is willing to restrict the availability of guns.

Ban anything and you reduce their risks. So?

Ban cars, or reduce their top speed to 20 and you reduce deaths to nearly zero.

The point is, a murderous animal doesn’t care what the tool is, they simply want to kill. And there are far more effective ways to kill then an AR.

The most appropriate gun depends on the target and location.

In general, guns are very effective ways to kill. That's what they are designed to do. They are easily available, relatively easy to use, and don't require the skills of knife fighting, marital arts, or bomb making. The gun is the perfect weapon for the weak of body and mind and the coward. It is the perfect weapon for killing unarmed children and adults from close up to far away.

Cowards?

Ok, your wife is attacked by three men who want to rape her.

I’m sure she’d appreciate the fact you think she was a coward for drawing her gun.