As usual SIR spews lies.

We indeed need a law that keeps whack jobs from getting their hands on weapons.

And it needs to be a law that does not run at cross purpose to the constitution.

So, lets get Congress to do their job, put aside politics and pass a law.

It won't stop the minions around here from pointing fingers and acting like 2 year olds, but it will save lives.

.......... so, yeah. Congress working together ...

 

Get congress to do their job? What a fucking joke. MassacreMoscowMitch and the Republicans won't even allow gun control bills to come up for a vote in the Senate. Moscow Mitch has been sitting on the gun legislation passed by the House for months.

 

The stupid Dumpocraps don't want to enforce the laws we have now. The lawlessness with regards to illegal immigration is proof of that.

You Dumpocraps love killing thousands of innocent babies in abortion clinics all over the country every day.

You think I believe you care one bit about a dozen or so people getting killed by some deranged mass shooter?

The Dumpocraps are all frauds...

 

One reason so many people object to Trump going for a photo op in El Paso is because his campaign never paid the city for the nearly $500,000 is security costs from the last time he was there.

 

Forgive me but I thought it was law enforcement that was responsible for enforcing the law......not politicians!

Prick!

Thinskin

 

OK, stupid.... You are forgiven....
law·mak·er
/ˈlôˌmākər/
noun

• 1. a legislator:"the game's official lawmakers are preparing the new legislation"

FYI, that's why they call them 'Lawmakers'...

 

OK shit for brains just read what you wrote and do not keep me up any longer!

Prick!

Thinskin

 

Hey clueless one, perhaps you should find someone smart enough to read it to you.

Maybe one of the other kids on the short bus can help you out...

 

Show me where you said lawmakers in the post I just quoted......halfwit!

Now if you will excuse me I have cunt to fill!

G'night all!

Thinskin

 

Why do you post such stupid nonsense?


Yes, perhaps it's time you run along and play with your blowup doll....

 

Ok let’s say that stricter gun legislation is necessary. What would this look like ideally to you! What specific types of guns should be banned? Should all firearms be banned unless someone can prove that they are a necessary in front of some magistrate? What form of proof would that require? We can all agree that convicted violent felons should not have access to guns but what about people with mental illnesses with no history of violence? One percent of the population is schizophrenic according to some studies but a very small population of these have shown any proclivity toward violence. Should they all be denied access to firearms? Did the people who committed these crimes over the weekend have such histories of violence or mental illness (I honestly don’t know)? Do we have any reason to believe that people denied access to guns and who are violent would not turn to knives or explosives or something equally sinister to achieve their ends? Remember that both of the biggest terrorist events (domestic and foreign) in the US were committed without a single bullet being fired. As an aside I can’t help but notice that people who think that our constitution was written too long ago to be relevant to today readily agree with the precepts of the Magna Carta written in 1215. So that’s confusing.

Ok imagine you are granted full control over the American gun issue. No questions asked. What would you do?

 

People seem to have a lot of visceral negative feelings about how bad the US gun laws are. But I haven’t seen any specifics about how they should be changed. This is everyone’s turn to give specific remedies. Otherwise it looks like people just want to complain.

 

We could start by knowing the difference between a judge and magistrate.
Just saying...

 

It seems to Shooter the issue is not which guns are avaable, but who has access to them and why.

 

List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019

 

Yes a judge would be unlikely to make decisions about one’s suitability to own weapons if such decisions needed to be made. Some lower level office would be more appropriate. Possibly a new position would need to be created to handle the large number of petitions brought to that office. Certainly some officer of the court would be necessary. I was asking if people felt that some such office is necessary.

 

In reading the posts it seems that many are concerned with the types of weapons and the easy access to them that’s the problem. So I’m curious what these people feel are appropriate weapons, if any, of self protection.

One poster did say that weapons should only be available to those who had a legitimate need for them. That got me thinking about what legitimate need would mean in the real regulatory world.

 

Well, Shooter thinks debate about which models should be banned is a waste of time.

See, anyone with the credit or cash can buy a car or motorcycle that is so powerful it cannot be legally operated on public roads, and they will kill.

They serve no legitimate purpose but ego.
Same with AK47s or any other similar weapon.

We aren't going to ban particular types of weapons any more than ban a Maserati or Bugatti.