Trump desire to suspend the Constitution is not a deal breaker to Republicans

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Vide the video above. You defend a mass shooting weapon way too much instead of wanting to see an end to mass shootings which these weapons do cause.

Banning the weapon isn't going to end mass shootings.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Banning the weapon isn't going to end mass shootings.

Whoever he/she is they are useful idiot's that the media and politicians take advantage of to spread their anti-Constitutional agenda.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The majority of mass shootings are perpetrated by gang members and handguns are used most. Again you do not know what the fuck you are talking about. A little effort on your part would see you educated on the subject. Instead you morons let the media and politicians control your thought process.

Lone gunmen outliers in nation’s mass shootings

The country’s eyes are trained on high-profile massacres in Texas and Buffalo, but most mass shootings bear little resemblance to those.

www.washingtontimes.com

Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2023 | Statista

Handguns are the most common weapons used in mass shootings in the United States. Other types of guns used in mass shootings include rifles and shotguns.

www.statista.com

Gang members? Teenagers, loners, mentally ill people are GANG members now.

It is the Jets vs the Sharks, folks.
How utterly irresponsible a human you are.
Profits over people.

Cowards never watch the video I posted and it is always the fault of others, not of the culture which exists ONLY in this country by people who do not give a darn about life of any kind.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

the Department of Justice can't be trusted ...voters can’t be trusted ... the poll workers can’t be trusted ... the voting machines can’t be trusted ... the canvasing boards can't be trusted ... the recounts can't be trusted ... the audits can't be trusted ... Democrats can't be trusted ... Republicans can't be trusted ... the media can’t be trusted ... the news can't be trusted ... Sydney Powell can't be trusted ... Lin Wood can't be trusted ... William Barr can’t be trusted ... Christopher Wray can't be trusted ... the guy who was in charge of election security can’t be trusted ... Georgia's Republican Secretary of State can't be trusted ... Gabriel Sterling, his Republican COO and Trump voter, can't be trusted ... the Republican-led Maricopa board of elections can't be trusted ... the Racine board of elections can't be trusted ... Mike Pence can't be trusted ... the pillow guy can't be trusted ... Cyber Ninja's can't be trusted ... the Arizona audit can't be trusted ... the Wisconsin audit can't be trusted ... the Wisconsin Attorney General can't be trusted ... state authorities can't be trusted ... the lower courts can’t be trusted ... the appellate courts can’t be trusted ... the Supreme Court can’t be trusted ... the United States Congress can't be trusted ...

But Donald Trump can be trusted.

No democrat can be trusted.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Banning the weapon isn't going to end mass shootings.

It will minimize it, it will go back to how it was before the weapon was allowed to be sold to anyone.

Check the statistics before 2004.

-----------------------------
That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:

Before the 1994 ban:​

From 1981 – the earliest year in our analysis – to the rollout of the assault weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of deaths in mass shootings in which an assault rifle was used was lower than it is today.

Yet in this earlier period, mass shooting deaths were steadily rising. Indeed, high-profile mass shootings involving assault rifles – such as the killing of five children in Stockton, California, in 1989and a 1993 San Francisco office attack that left eight victims dead – provided the impetusbehind a push for a prohibition on some types of gun.

During the 1994-2004 ban:​

In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.

From 2004 onward:​

The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.

Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2004 and 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.


(full article online)

Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us • Ohio Capital Journal

Researchers have calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the 1994 to 2004 national assault weapons ban was active.

ohiocapitaljournal.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Whoever he/she is they are useful idiot's that the media and politicians take advantage of to spread their anti-Constitutional agenda.

Robert Murdoch loves you.

 

[Slade3200]

Well I see you don't know the story. The computer was given to the FBI in 2019, and when the computer repairman saw the FBI was going to sit on it, he gave a copy to Gulliani. And yes, with all the incriminating evidence on the laptop, you'd think hunter should be in jail. What does that tell you about our judicial system in general and the FBI in particular? Of course the guy that was identified in the FBI that suppressed the laptop was allowed to resign with no repercussions. You'll see more calls for Wray to resign and/or his impeachment next year. The house judicial committee is all over it.

.

Ok but you’re ignoring my question about the child rape. There was supposedly videos of Hunter raping little girls on that laptop, right? So if that is true and if it was verified then why didn’t Trumps DOJ, Bill Barr, do something about?

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ As some Republicans in Congress put it, Trump DID lose the 2020 election ]


Former President Donald Trump on Monday attempted to clarify his call for suspending parts of the U.S. Constitution or the “termination” of rules and regulations to allow himself to return to the White House, after drawing rebuke from other Republicans.

Initially, Trump said on his Truth Social platform on Saturday that the role of social media companies limiting and removing misinformation and content that violated its policies in 2020 “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

In his newest post, Trump indicated he didn’t say he wanted to terminate the Constitution, stating Monday that “steps must be immediately taken to RIGHT THE WRONG,” referring to what he describes as widespread fraud and deception involving “Big Tech” — of which he provided no evidence — in the 2020 election.


Trump’s initial comment came after Twitter CEO Elon Musk promoted a series of tweets from writer Matt Taibbi about Twitter removing content, particularly related to Joe Biden’s son Hunter, in 2020.


Earlier on Monday, a Republican close to Trump sought to clarify the former president’s comments, suggesting that Trump was misunderstood.

“He’s highlighting the unprecedented nature of Big Tech meddling in the 2020 election to benefit Joe Biden, just like how unprecedented of an act terminating some rules of the Constitution would be,” the Republican told Yahoo News.

Trump’s comments — the adviser did not say if Trump would push the idea further — followed a news cycle in which Republicans leaders roundly condemned him for dining with a white nationalist leader and increasingly antisemitic rapper Kanye West, now known as Ye.


His standing in the field of other possible 2024 candidates has diminished steadily since he left the White House almost two years ago, yet Trump remains the clear frontrunner, ahead of would-be competitors Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence and a handful of others. Trump has not held any campaign events since his formal campaign launch on Nov. 15.

On Monday, former Vice President Mike Pence rejected the idea put forth by Trump, saying in an interview with WVOC radio that “everyone that serves in public office, everyone that aspires to serve or serve again, should make it clear that we will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

A handful of Republican lawmakers also quickly rebuked Trump’s comments over the weekend.

“You know, he says a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean that it’s ever going to happen,” Rep. David Joyce, R-Ohio, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week."

Rep.-elect Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., said on CNN’s “State of the Union”: “Obviously, I don’t support that,” and said that most people want to move on from Trump’s 2020 loss.

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan speaks to the media at a fundraising event on Nov. 30 in Arundel Mills, Md. (Amy Davis/Baltimore Sun/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

In a tweet on Monday, outgoing Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, who’s been teasing a potential 2024 run, said “the Constitution is not the problem.”

“Looking backward and attacking the Constitution is the problem. It's time for our party to put this nonsense in the past and move forward.”

Trump’s latest explanation Monday continues a long-running trend of the former president making stunning statements and then walking them back — often without publicly determining a course of action. Near the end of the 2016 election, Trump said he would sue all the womenaccusing him of sexual assault, then rescinded the threat. And, in the spring of 2019, Trump proposed closing part of the border with Mexico, but said shortly after that he would wait a year to do so, according to research compiled by the Democratic opposition research group American Bridge.

Trump tries to clarify call for 'termination' of parts of Constitution amid backlash

Former President Donald Trump on Monday attempted to clarify his call for the “termination” of rules and regulations in the U.S. Constitution to allow himself to return to the White House, after drawing rebuke from other Republicans.

news.yahoo.com

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

It will minimize it, it will go back to how it was before the weapon was allowed to be sold to anyone.

Check the statistics before 2004.

-----------------------------
That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:

Before the 1994 ban:​

From 1981 – the earliest year in our analysis – to the rollout of the assault weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of deaths in mass shootings in which an assault rifle was used was lower than it is today.

Yet in this earlier period, mass shooting deaths were steadily rising. Indeed, high-profile mass shootings involving assault rifles – such as the killing of five children in Stockton, California, in 1989and a 1993 San Francisco office attack that left eight victims dead – provided the impetusbehind a push for a prohibition on some types of gun.

During the 1994-2004 ban:​

In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999’s Columbine High School massacre – the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994 to 2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.

From 2004 onward:​

The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.

Breaking the data into absolute numbers, between 2004 and 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.


(full article online)

Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here’s what the data tells us • Ohio Capital Journal

Researchers have calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the 1994 to 2004 national assault weapons ban was active.

ohiocapitaljournal.com

Semi-automatic, magazine fed rifles have been on the civilian market since 1904.

The AR platform has been on the civilian market since 1989.

The gun has nothing to do with it.

 

[Faun]

I guess you're the only one that had that information. You're not too good at communications, are ya.

LOL

Why the fuck do you think I'm the only one with information about that lawsuit?

Again, accept reality for once... you didn't know which case I was talking about when I pointed out it's been to multiple courts.

You still don't know.

 

[Faun]

No democrat can be trusted.

Imbecile, many, if not most, of the people I mentioned are Republicans.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Imbecile, many, if not most, of the people I mentioned are Republicans.

Democrats are the spawn of Satan and need to be extinguished.

 

[Faun]

Democrats are the spawn of Satan and need to be extinguished.

LOL

Good luck with that, nazi.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Whoever he/she is they are useful idiot's that the media and politicians take advantage of to spread their anti-Constitutional agenda.

It's all by design: the media and the anti-gunners constantly advertise how effective the AR-15 is as a mass casualty weapon. It isn't rocket science that would be mass shooters are going to hear that and choose it as their weapon of choice. The objective: more mass shootings, the easier it is to ban semi-automatic rifles.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Democrats are the spawn of Satan and need to be extinguished.

Just like Jews, Blacks, Asians and all others White Supremacists deem unacceptable .

 

[EvilCat Breath]

LOL

Good luck with that, nazi.

Ohhhh nazi! Gee I never heard that before. It's almost a good as racist,

The only thing worth saying is.....
Nazis are better than democrats. Way better.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Just like Jews, Blacks, Asians and all others White Supremacists deem unacceptable .

Only Jews, Blacks and Asians if they are democrats. This isn't racial. It's political.

 

[Sixties Fan]

It's all by design: the media and the anti-gunners constantly advertise how effective the AR-15 is as a mass casualty weapon. It isn't rocket science that would be mass shooters are going to hear that and choose it as their weapon of choice. The objective: more mass shootings, the easier it is to ban semi-automatic rifles.

They do not need to hear it. They watched the news where so many were killed with these guns, and when THEY go ballistic, that is the weapon some of them have chosen to use, for MAXIMAL effect.

The more who die, the better. Take as many as they can, and then usually Finally.....kill themselves and get themselves out of the miserable lives they had.

Sometimes for revenge as in the Walmart case. No matter which weapon was used, too many died.


Their point IS to kill as many people as possible on THEIR way out of this world.


It would not happen, that many losses of lives, if it were not for the lifting of the ban on that weapon.