If you didn't catch Matthew Mcconaughey from the White House breifing room, live, You need to

[XponentialChaos]

Then you admit that 18 year olds actually are mature enough to own semi-automatic rifles; you're just trying to further your gun banning agenda by taking whatever ones you can get.

Some are. If their profession requires them to use guns and they get proper training in those careers, then that’s fine with me. Fine with Florida as well.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Thanks for the chuckle.

You'll be crying in November, then the REAL angry liberals will come out. God you people were so pissy angry the entire 4 years of Trump.

 

[Ringtone]

There was no age restriction on purchasing any gun in the US until 1968 and, yet, we didn't have all of these school shootings... go figure. children owned guns and didn't shoot up their schools. You're not addressing the problem. You're just another anti-gun Fudd.

No, I'm not. Your allegation is juvenile.

 

[Quasar44]

He is a failed actor and Buffon

 

[White 6]

Federal law already prohibits purchase of a handgun by 18 year olds but the Uvalde shooter had a handgun. The Buffalo shooter also had a legal shotgun. You'd have to pass a law that makes it illegal to break the law and also ban shotguns to have prevented those two shootings.

Nothing you propose, and nothing McConaughey proposed, would have stopped either shooting.

Well, I guess I would have to know if anybody was killed with a handgun in Uvalde or a shotgun in buffalo, which I don't. I will say, both those dumbass young men bought their through normal channels, last I heard. No of what he proposed or that I said, for that matter will be completely effective by would have a lowering effect. If it saved one school shooting, would it be worth it or does it only matter if it is the school your kids or grandkids go to?

 

[Esdraelon]

It is not a partisan issue it is literally, day by day becoming and has become a survival issue, honest middle of the road loyal Americans want addressed.

The truth, the real background and setting for this little psychodrama is that the vast, vast majority of the 80-90 million American gun owners is that they do absolutely no harm to anyone. In fact, even when they use a firearm to kill, the majority of them do so to THEMSELVES. I also grew up being taught responsible, safe gun handling and have owned firearms my whole life.

The history of all tyrannies down through history is that those in power harass citizens until they get to take their means of resistance, then they eventually create hellholes that lead to mass graves. Before allowing that to happen to us, I'd hope we make our deaths MEAN SOMETHING.

 

[fncceo]

As I suspected...your coat is a brownish color.

Them ain't kosherized rules

 

[White 6]

The truth, the real background and setting for this little psychodrama is that the vast, vast majority of the 80-90 million American gun owners is that they do absolutely no harm to anyone. In fact, even when they use a firearm to kill, the majority of them do so to THEMSELVES. I also grew up being taught responsible, safe gun handling and have owned firearms my whole life.

The history of all tyrannies down through history is that those in power harass citizens until they get to take their means of resistance, then they eventually create hellholes that lead to mass graves. Before allowing that to happen to us, I'd hope we make our deaths MEAN SOMETHING.

Having not witnessed any of the tyrannies happening around me and having served in the forces that keep it from happening here, I am not was worried as you, the government is going to swing that way.

 

[Mac-7]

I think McConaughey will lose.

Beto 2.0

He's going to get your AR15s.

But sneakily

At least Beto has the stones to tell you to your face he wants to ban your guns.

Hollywood McConaughey...not so much.

Dont underestimate McConaughey

 

[GWV5903]

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
Taking away guns gives control to governments.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is “control," not “gun."

~Ted Nugent

 

[GWV5903]

Fact-check continues the narrative that guns kill people, when are we going to try and understand that gun control will never stop evil?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Well, I personally believe changing the age of legally acquiring weapons for non-hunting pursuits until 21 will probably save lives. I think taking the weapons away from people showing antisocial or self harming mental conditions will save lives. I think stop and frisk for illegal weapons being carried by those that are not supposed to have them will save lives. I think, not allowing rifles and ARs on city streets will save lives, as it makes the people that have one stand out to be noticed by law enforcement as a probable public threat. I think requiring training and background checks (uniformly across the country) will save lives.

I know there was a time when none of that was necessary

And I will be glad to not let the government limit their speech,

PC already limits speech, which is the real reason for gun control

as I have alwasy supported free speech.

would you still support it if it was tied to gun control legislation?

 

[Unkotare]

A communist would say...

 

[White 6]

I know there was a time when none of that was necessary


PC already limits speech, which is the real reason for gun control


would you still support it if it was tied to gun control legislation?

All that PC crap is crap, but yes, it limits some speech, though not by the government. Companies/employers have always limited speech. You could be kicked out, customer or employee, and hardly anything came of it. Now it's "Oh, My God! You're abusing my right!" People don't realize, free speech rights go a lot further protecting from government censorship (as they were written to do) than non-governmental entities. If in-person, in the civilian world at a non-government firm, you can find yourself silenced and escorted off the property, terminated for cause, and not much to do about it, depending on circumstance.

 

[2aguy]

You'll be crying in November, then the REAL angry liberals will come out. God you people were so pissy angry the entire 4 years of Trump.

They burned our cities for 7 months, they tried to murder the entire republican baseball team, they just now tried to murder a conservative Supreme Court Justice.......they are out of control now, imagine if they lose in 2024...

 

[White 6]

They burned our cities for 7 months, they tried to murder the entire republican baseball team, they just now tried to murder a conservative Supreme Court Justice.......they are out of control now, imagine if they lose in 2024...

Many people do not think, how important local elections are and skip them. These local and state races are pretty important, as these are the people that have to respond in a pinch, as you would like them to respond. My own brother blows off local elections and doesn't even watch much local news, which constantly amazes me. They are not just local and state pretty faces. How they handle their jobs, can get real important, real quick.
We didn't have these problems in the local cities or our state.

 

[hjmick]

You're on the fence in regard to the Constitution? How do you justify a person losing their constitutional rights even with due process?

I'm on the fence because I understand the impetus behind them, but I have a real problem with the lack of due process. I thought that was fairly clear... or at least easy to deduce for the moderately intelligent...

As for people who lose the constitutional rights even with due process, tough shit, I guess you shouldn't have committed that crime. Seriously, you want convicted violent felons to retain their 2nd amendment rights? People convicted of spousal abuse... rape...? Yeah, let's treat them as if they did nothing to offend a civil society...

Move along now.

 

[woodwork201]

Made sense to me. I would do a total ban on semi-automatics and don't think that is what will come aboutm but the regulation on ownership and use need to be tightened.

At last you finally admit that you are a leftist gun controller and support confiscation - even of your own guns. After all the time you spent pretending to be a libertarian moderate. Yet another example of a veteran who, sadly, have thrown out your oath to the Constitution.

 

[woodwork201]

I have not seen them do it.

Did I say they've done it? You said that the guns have changed so the gun regulations must change from what it was in 1789, therefore, the obvious corollary is that the tools of free speech have changed and, therefore, regulation of speech must also change. I didn't say they've done it, I was just looking to see if you'd be honest and acknowledge your support for it.

Even though it's off topic, since you raised the question, though, of whether they've done it, they most certainly have done it:

Revealed: Biden Officials LIED When They Said Disinformation Board Wouldn’t Target Americans

Sens. Hawley and Grassley have documents that reveal DHS Secretary Mayorkas lied to the American people about the Disinformation Board’s purpose and scope.

pjmedia.com

 

[woodwork201]

Yeah, you are nuts….. after they get all the semi-auto rifles, then they will go after the semi-auto pistols next then the shotguns….using the same argument that they operate just like the rifles you let them ban….so we must ban all semi-auto guns….

Then they go after the bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns…since they actually are weapons of war….

There have been bills in Congress, luckily none passed so far, that define a semi-automatic weapon as any weapon that pulling the trigger once fires the weapon and readies it to fire again on the next trigger pull. Gun controllers consider revolvers as semi-automatic. What they would leave us with, for only a time, is only single shot weapons. We wouldn't be allowed to keep those for long, either.