Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't use NRA talking points....I actually do research into the issue...you guys spew anti gun extremism coming from your hate for people.....
My solution is to target actual criminals...long prison sentences and actually arresting gun criminals....
You guys...arrest normal gun owners ( who don't commit gun crime) for clerical issues and destroy their lives...
Yeah....your way isn't working....
Nope...the studies actually say most violent crimes end when the victim draws his weapon...the criminal runs away or surrenders, and they wait for the police.
5 words that gut your response:Total nonsense.No, people who think they know better how you should live, than you do... and who want to disarm you so they can force their will on you (that is, modern liberals) beget more violence.Violence only begets more violence.
When the victims try to fight back and refuse disarmament, the resulting violence is not the victims' fault. It's still the liberals' fault, who tried to coerce them in the first place.
And the best way to reduce mass shootings, is still allowing everyone to carry. Most people still won't bother. But a few will. And the criminal knows that when he wants to shoot up a shopping mall or school, knows that a few adults in the crowd are probably carrying... and he won't know which ones they are. But he knows it's unlikely he'll be able to rack up the huge body counts he wants, to get weeks of lurid headlines after he's dead. And so he often will change his mind and not try. Without a shot being fired.
You can never eliminate all mass shootings 100%. But this is the best way to reduce them.
And the liberals are dead set against it. Even though they know the methods they are pushing, don't work.
If more guns made the public safer, the US would have the safest society by far since, by far, we have the highest number of guns in the hands of citizenry of any 1st world nation.
Instead, we have, by far, the highest homicide rate of any developed nation.
Meanwhile, nations that have passed strict gun control efforts have very few shootings compared to the United States.
Its vividly clear that they are doing something right and we are doing something wrong.
Those are the facts and they are not in dispute.
TRANSLATION: I can't refute the OP, but I hate it anyway. So I'll change the subject and complain about "guns killing people" instead of people killing people, and call for total gun confiscation as usual, carefully not mentioning the massive police state necessary to enforce it. In the meantime, I'll also ignore that the best way to reduce mass shootings, is to let everyone carry, even though most still won't bother.No, people who think they know better how you should live, than you do... and who want to disarm you so they can force their will on you (that is, modern liberals) beget more violence.Violence only begets more violence.
When the victims try to fight back and refuse disarmament, the resulting violence is not the victims' fault. It's still the liberals' fault, who tried to coerce them in the first place.
And the best way to reduce mass shootings, is still allowing everyone to carry. Most people still won't bother. But a few will. And the criminal knows that when he wants to shoot up a shopping mall or school, knows that a few adults in the crowd are probably carrying... and he won't know which ones they are. But he knows it's unlikely he'll be able to rack up the huge body counts he wants, to get weeks of lurid headlines after he's dead. And so he often will change his mind and not try. Without a shot being fired.
You can never eliminate all mass shootings 100%. But this is the best way to reduce them.
And the liberals are dead set against it. Even though they know the methods they are pushing, don't work.
Total nonsense.
If more guns made the public safer, the US would have the safest society by far since, by far, we have the highest number of guns in the hands of citizenry of any 1st world nation.
Instead, we have, by far, the highest homicide rate of any developed nation.
Meanwhile, nations that have passed strict gun control efforts have very few shootings compared to the United States.
Its vividly clear that they are doing something right and we are doing something wrong.
Those are the facts and they are not in dispute.
Exactly. It is just a hunk of metal. But the Constitution does not say you have the right to own ammunition. Bottom line. The word 'arms' refers to the gun, not to the ammunition.Exactly. That's what I am saying You have the right to own guns, based on the Constitution. However, you do not have the right to own ammunition: based on the Constitution. Firearms and their ammunition are two separate things. Right.Not even you are so stupid to believe that, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, firearms and their ammunition are independent from one another.The Constitution doesn't say anything about ammunition.Sure -- because that won't violate the constitution or anything.
No, dimwit, the Second Amendment does not say, "keep and bear guns". It says, "keep and bear arms". A gun is not an arm without ammunition. It's just a hunk of metal.
Maybe this is too technological for you. Try this: a bow is just a stick. A bow and arrow are a weapon. It's a two-parter.
And it occurs to me that you know this, otherwise you wouldn't want to take away people's ammunition. The whole point is to stop them from having arms, isn't it?
Please cite the text of the constitution that says this.
Oh wait... you won't because you can't.
You lose, puppy. Again.
The word Militia is there for a reason. You'll have to be pretty stupid to think the framers were just putting random words into the amendments.
Get used to it (or join a militia). The court's job is to correct the other branches. The correction is coming. All we need is HRC in the oval and the Dems to re-take Congress (and political will to do it which is always suspect at best).
The word "militia" is there, as I said before while you were, to clarify a reason why THE PEOPLE (aka individual citizens) should have an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms, a reason that is not already mentioned or implied elsewhere.
Not a modifying clause. Nothing is going to change the rules of English.
Yes, much like the sentence fragment you just wrote.
And Well-Regulated? What about that? A well-regulated Militia...that is what the Constitution allows. Every gun owner I know of (outside of those in the National Guard--where they don't even bring their personal weapons (roh-roh)) couldn't tell a flanking maneuver from a flank steak. If they were asked to fix bayonets, they would first ask what is wrong with them.
So now you have to go back to the drawing board and explain how today's redneck buying a personal arsenal is somehow a member of a "well regulated Militia".
Get busy little man.
----
Remember to bend your knees when you lift the goal posts....don't want you throwing your back out.
Well, Chuckles, you want to know what they meant? Try looking at the Founding generation, and see what they actually did. If you find a news article about them ratifying the Second Amendment, and then immediately trying to take away individually-owned guns, you WILL post it for us, right?
Gee, another gun nutjob surrenders. Thanks for playing. Check please.
You people are so pathetic. You are arguing a moot point and calling me stupid. It seems pretty stupid to me to argue a moot point: there is no point for debate because a gun and ammunition are completely separate things, and ammunition is not included in the 2nd Amendment.Exactly. That's what I am saying You have the right to own guns, based on the Constitution. However, you do not have the right to own ammunition: based on the Constitution. Firearms and their ammunition are two separate things. Right.Not even you are so stupid to believe that, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, firearms and their ammunition are independent from one another.The Constitution doesn't say anything about ammunition.Sure -- because that won't violate the constitution or anything.
No, dimwit, the Second Amendment does not say, "keep and bear guns". It says, "keep and bear arms". A gun is not an arm without ammunition. It's just a hunk of metal.
Maybe this is too technological for you. Try this: a bow is just a stick. A bow and arrow are a weapon. It's a two-parter.
And it occurs to me that you know this, otherwise you wouldn't want to take away people's ammunition. The whole point is to stop them from having arms, isn't it?
Looks like we have another standard liberal fanatic on hand. Hoping against hope that her mentor Herr Goebbels was right when he said that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will become The Truth.The word 'arms' refers to the gun, not to the ammunition.
"Arms" includes ammo, obviously.You are the one who is stupid. Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to own ammunition?
Nice try.
(It's amazing how stupid liberals need normal Americans to be, to believe that the Framers didn't mean to include gunpowder, bullets etc. in their definition of "arms".)
Does it include taser guns? Just curious how elastic your reading of the 2nd Amendment is. A 500 pound bomb could be called an armament also...right? Are bazooka's included? TOW Missiles?
Have all the 'arms' you want, just no ammunition.Exactly. That's what I am saying You have the right to own guns, based on the Constitution. However, you do not have the right to own ammunition: based on the Constitution. Firearms and their ammunition are two separate things. Right.Not even you are so stupid to believe that, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, firearms and their ammunition are independent from one another.The Constitution doesn't say anything about ammunition.Sure -- because that won't violate the constitution or anything.
No, dimwit, the Second Amendment does not say, "keep and bear guns". It says, "keep and bear arms". A gun is not an arm without ammunition. It's just a hunk of metal.
Maybe this is too technological for you. Try this: a bow is just a stick. A bow and arrow are a weapon. It's a two-parter.
And it occurs to me that you know this, otherwise you wouldn't want to take away people's ammunition. The whole point is to stop them from having arms, isn't it?
Please do try to keep up with jurisprudence -- not doing so only illustrates your ignorance."Arms" includes ammo, obviously.You are the one who is stupid. Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to own ammunition?
Nice try.
(It's amazing how stupid liberals need normal Americans to be, to believe that the Framers didn't mean to include gunpowder, bullets etc. in their definition of "arms".)
Does it include taser guns? Just curious how elastic your reading of the 2nd Amendment is. A 500 pound bomb could be called an armament also...right? Are bazooka's included? TOW Missiles?
The word Militia is there for a reason.
Awk! Polly want a cracker?
They know they cannot argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.Looks like we have another standard liberal fanatic on hand. Hoping against hope that her mentor Herr Goebbels was right when he said that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will become The Truth.The word 'arms' refers to the gun, not to the ammunition.
They hate themselves for it, but they realize they have no other choice.
Is this liberal fanatic still trying to pretend guns are only for militias?The word Militia is there for a reason.
Awk! Polly want a cracker?
And ignoring the fact that this line was completely debunked just a few minutes ago?
Herr Goebbels would be proud.
The word "Militia" is in the amendment for a reason. Am I saying you can't have a gun unless you're in a militia? No.
Am I saying the constitutional standing for you to have a gun isn't there? You betcha.
Please cite the text of the constitution that says this.No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons.
Oh wait... you won't because you can't.
You lose, puppy. Again.
The word Militia is there for a reason. You'll have to be pretty stupid to think the framers were just putting random words into the amendments.
Get used to it (or join a militia). The court's job is to correct the other branches. The correction is coming. All we need is HRC in the oval and the Dems to re-take Congress (and political will to do it which is always suspect at best).
The word "militia" is there, as I said before while you were
Not a modifying clause. Nothing is going to change the rules of English.
Yes, much like the sentence fragment you just wrote.
And Well-Regulated? What about that? A well-regulated Militia...that is what the Constitution allows. Every gun owner I know of (outside of those in the National Guard--where they don't even bring their personal weapons (roh-roh)) couldn't tell a flanking maneuver from a flank steak. If they were asked to fix bayonets, they would first ask what is wrong with them.
So now you have to go back to the drawing board and explain how today's redneck buying a personal arsenal is somehow a member of a "well regulated Militia".
Get busy little man.
----
Remember to bend your knees when you lift the goal posts....don't want you throwing your back out.
Well Cecilie1200 Where you at?
If that happens the blood shed will be so great, this country will not survive it... And rightly so.They already addressed that issue. Interesting how you only consider the Supreme Court to be the last word when it's a word you like.
FYI, there is nothing about the Second Amendment that enables "monthly bloodbaths", dumbass.
No kidding. It calls for a Militia to have weapons. Once Hillary is installed as President, Scalia succumbs to Father Time as we all eventually will, and she installs some center-left jurists...we'll see the amendment re-examined.
Not too long ago I thought succession was crazy... It's sounding better and better every time it comes up.
In most of the world, the arms are limited to the police and legitimate military. They lead prosperous peaceful lives.
Yes, most of the world is full of peaceful, fluffy puppies and unicorns shooting glittery rainbows out their asses.
No, most of the world is full of nations that have sensible gun laws and those nations live in peace and are fairly prosperous.
Goebbels understood that 'the big lie" theory applied to the people who disseminate it as well as those who hear it.Is this liberal fanatic still trying to pretend guns are only for militias?The word Militia is there for a reason.
Awk! Polly want a cracker?
And ignoring the fact that this line was completely debunked just a few minutes ago?
Herr Goebbels would be proud.
Goebbels would be proud of his best apprentice; you.
The word militia is there for a reason. Why is it there if not to indicate that the militia was the intended user of the weapons it provides for?
Give everyone a gun, this will not prevent shootings, but unless the shooter is in a tower like the one in Texas, someone in the room will shoot the shooter before he can kill all of his or her victims.Something I wrote in 2007 after another mass murder then. As true now as it was then.
-------------------------------------------------------
What IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?
No method is 100% perfect, of course, and never will be as long as we are a society of imperfect people.
But most of the methods being tried today, pretty much have no effect. Indeed, insane mass murderers seem to be drawn to the "Gun Free Zones" set up by naïve liberals. Where else can they be guaranteed a large collection of unarmed, vulnerable targets, with many uninterrupted minutes to blow away as many people as they like before the cops get there?
Is there a viable way to cut down the numbers of such shootings, and/or the body counts?
Many of the whackos (people who actually start shooting into crowds, at malls, post offices, schools etc.) know it is a suicide mission. The idea that they may be killed, obviously doesn't deter them... in that way, anyway.
But what most of them want, is to go out with a huge splash. They want huge headlines after the fact, crying and wailing about the ten or twenty or thirty innocent people who died, how horrible it all is, wailing and gnashing about what we could have done to prevent it, three-page exposes about the shooter's disturbed childhood and how unfair society was to him, etc. etc. To their twisted minds, that's worth getting dead over.
But if they show up at their planned execution site, start pulling the trigger, wound the first person, miss with the next shot, and then get get shot through the middle of the bod by someone in the crowd they never suspected might have his own gun, next day's headlines will be much less lurid. Some nut pulled a gun and fired two shots, wounding one. The wounded person is now recovering in the hospital, and the nut is dead, end of story. He's a footnote on page 28, if that.
And THAT's what the whackos don't want to happen. They want huge headlines and weeks of media coverage, even after they are dead, that's mostly why they're doing it.
If everyone is allowed to carry, most people still won't bother. I probably wouldn't most of the time. But some people will. And a nutcase like this guy will never know which people in the crowd, are the ones with their own gun. Could be the granny in the wheelchair over there, whose kids were killed in a home invasion robbery five years ago, who swore she'd never go unarmed again, and never misses her weekend hour or two at the practice range.
The deranged whacko is certainly insane. But he's obviously still coherent enough to have a goal in mind, and to do what he needs to carry it out. And he's probably coherent enough to realize that a few unknown people in the crowd who have guns and are practiced in their use, can and will deny him the splashy headlines he wants. And there's nothing he can do about it.
It's enough to often make even a deranged whacko reconsider his plans. Why start shooting at a public event, if you're simply going to become dead three seconds later with little or no lurid body count to show for it?
Letting law-abiding citizens carry freely is, and has always been, the best deterrent to crime. Criminals know there will be somebody nearby who will discourage them quickly. Only in so-called "gun free zones" are the criminals guaranteed the freedom to carry out their crimes.
Or does somebody think that some nutcase who is ready and willing to murder dozens of people, will turn around and obey a new "No guns permitted here" law?
Of course. Because as everybody knows, when a fire breaks out the thing to do is drown it in gasoline. That'll show it.
You want to "prevent more violence" by standing still complacently while someone shoots you? You go on with your bad self. Bye.
Excellent. DC Comics Drama Queen checks in to elevate the discussion.
Be still my fart.
Stronger mental health system, which confines the violent.
Make firearms a mandatory class in school.
What if you're simply not interested inbloodgutskillingviolenceintimidationloud noisesaggression via remote controldestructiondeathfirearms?
Stronger mental health system, which confines the violent.
Make firearms a mandatory class in school.
What if you're simply not interested inbloodgutskillingviolenceintimidationloud noisesaggression via remote controldestructiondeathfirearms?
What if you're not interested in evolution or global warming?
That's not a fetish.
What if it violates your religious principles?
