Jump to content

What is better, no guns, or more guns?


Recommended Posts

It's always nice to have the people on your side! 

 

 

Quote

 

Americans across party and demographic lines overwhelmingly support expanded background checks for gun buyers and allowing law enforcement to temporarily seize weapons from troubled individuals, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, as President Trump and Republicans face fresh pressure to act.

Although the poll finds a continued partisan divide on more far-reaching gun-control proposals, public opinion is firmly behind Democrats’ push for action as Congress returns to Washington on Monday. More Americans say they trust congressional Democrats over Trump to handle the nation’s gun laws, 51 percent to 36 percent, with independents siding with Democrats by a 17-point margin — a divide that could have political ramifications for the 2020 presidential and congressional elections.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/americans-of-both-parties-overwhelmingly-support-red-flag-laws-expanded-gun-background-checks-washington-post-abc-news-poll-finds/2019/09/08/97208916-ca75-11e9-a4f3-c081a126de70_story.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Joe Miner said:

 

Really?

 

Most people are idiots, and so are most Congress people.

 

Seems like they're represented quite well.

 

So you are OK with taxpayers providing salaries to these 'representatives', funding their healthcare for the rest of their lives, and providing them a generous pension when they in fact are working for the interests of their donors and not, generally speaking, for you and I, their constituents?  I am not OK with that. 

 

It might be wise to consider that there may come an issue where you are not in agreement with the big donors.  You can see that, right?  Or, are you one of those idiots you referenced?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

So you are OK with taxpayers providing salaries to these 'representatives', funding their healthcare for the rest of their lives, and providing them a generous pension when they in fact are working for the interests of their donors and not, generally speaking, for you and I, their constituents?  I am not OK with that. 

 

It might be wise to consider that there may come an issue where you are not in agreement with the big donors.  You can see that, right?  Or, are you one of those idiots you referenced?

 

 

 

See. You're well represented.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TRUMP’S TAKE SCORES AGAIN: Nation agrees ‘mental health’ is the top gun issue.

 

President Trump’s focus on mental health as he considers ways to curb gun violence is backed by most Americans and the issue has even prompted a California Democrat to call for a suicide warning label to be stamped on weapons.

While most Democratic presidential candidates are pushing for strong gun control measures and bans, Trump is focused on tweaking background check standards and keeping guns from mentally troubled people.

A new Gallup poll found strong support for that approach. In the survey, most, 83%, blamed the “failure of the mental health system to identify individuals who are a danger to others.”

Access to guns was third at 69%.

Surging into second in the survey, at 79%, was “the spread of extremist viewpoints on the internet.”

 

Trump should just announce that he’s red-flagging crazy people, starting with Antifa, and creating a new office to scrub extremists off the Internet, headed by Dinesh D’Souza. Sure, that would just be trolling, but who’s better at it?

 

 

 

 

.

 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2019 at 6:00 PM, Bob in Mich said:

 

So you are OK with taxpayers providing salaries to these 'representatives', funding their healthcare for the rest of their lives, and providing them a generous pension when they in fact are working for the interests of their donors and not, generally speaking, for you and I, their constituents?  I am not OK with that. 

 

It might be wise to consider that there may come an issue where you are not in agreement with the big donors.  You can see that, right?  Or, are you one of those idiots you referenced?

 

 

 

I've never understood how this is allowed to happen.

 

I don't understand the difference between political contributions from a corporation and bribery. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2019 at 7:39 PM, DC Tom said:

 

Those are not the same thing.

 

I've always thought that Ruger would be the biggest economic winner of the ban on ARs because everybody would just start buying Mini14s (and 30s).

 

They aren't ARs and don't look like them but they do all the same things that the AR will do.  (.223, semi-automatic, variety of magazine capacities)  I recall after the FBI shootout in the mid 80s where one of the bad guys used a Mini, there was a movement to go banning those rifles at the time.   

 

FWIW, I saw that event as the watershed moment of the significantly "up-arming" of local and state law enforcement.  After that, you saw police rolling out semi-auto handguns universally as service weapons, the 10mm round, carrying carbines in every patrol vehicle, etc.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, B-Man said:

The argument seems to be: “We need to confiscate these guns because if they are left in the hands of their owners they will be used to kill.

 

But also they’ll all be handed over without incident.”

 

Contradictory.

 

The notion that they all want to take away ALL guns is completely disingenuous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

The notion that they all want to take away ALL guns is completely disingenuous. 

 

They won't define "assault weapon" (and current definition means any semi auto which means 90% of most guns today)... and there's this: 

 

 

They aren't hiding it. You're just ignoring it.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

They won't define "assault weapon" (and current definition means any semi auto which means 90% of most guns today)... and there's this: 

 

 

They aren't hiding it. You're just ignoring it.

 

Saying you're going to take away AR-15s and AK-47s automatically means they're going after all pistols, shotguns and hunting rifles?

Edited by jrober38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Saying you're going to take away AR-15s and AK-47s automatically means they're going after all pistols, shotguns and hunting rifles?

 

Read what I wrote. 

 

They won't define "assault weapon" while talking about taking away all assault weapons. The current definition is any semi-auto weapon -- which is 90% of the weapons out there today. 

 

So yes. They're coming for all the guns. They aren't hiding it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Read what I wrote. 

 

They won't define "assault weapon" while talking about taking away all assault weapons. The current definition is any semi-auto weapon -- which is 90% of the weapons out there today. 

 

So yes. They're coming for all the guns. They aren't hiding it.

 

I completely disagree.

 

You're paranoid if you think they have any intention of taking away your deer rifle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Read what I wrote. 

 

They won't define "assault weapon" while talking about taking away all assault weapons. The current definition is any semi-auto weapon -- which is 90% of the weapons out there today. 

 

So yes. They're coming for all the guns. They aren't hiding it.

It's not like we haven't seen this "give an inch, take a mile" approach from the Left before. It wasn't that long ago that a whole bunch of promises were made regarding healthcare. Now they're pushing for basically Universal Healthcare.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...