It is frustrating to the Progressive Left that so many Americans are opposed to their biggest agenda items; European/Chicago Style Gun Control, California-Style Environmental Extremism, Open Borders, and giving politicians, unions, the Democrat news-media and left-leaning special interest groups a monopoly on political speech.
“Committed Democrats and liberal-leaning interest groups are facing a reality in which any policy gains they achieve are going to come through the profligate use of executive authority, and Clinton is almost uniquely suited to deliver the goods,” (Vox Pundit Matt Yglesias) writes. “More than almost anyone else around, she knows where the levers of power lie, and she is comfortable pulling them, procedural niceties be damned.”
What he calls “Procedural Niceties” the rest of us would call “the Constitutional Separation of Powers.”
And indeed, Hillary’s agenda is open borders, gun control, and creating a left-wing monopoly on political speech.
Clinton has latched on to some of them. She says she’ll appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn the Citizens United decision that ushered in a new era of soft money in politics and force government contractors to disclose political donations. She says she’ll make sure her Homeland Security secretary is more lenient about deportations, and that she will close the “gun show loophole” by requiring private gun sellers to register as licensed dealers.
Binary thinking – always bad! Just look at the state of the Republican party in the House right now. Protecting the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and enacting sensible gun control are NOT mutually exclusive. Not sure anyone knows yet exactly what sensible gun controls are, but we are a smart society (at least we think we are) and can figure it out if anyone/everyone would just be courageous enough to start the process of believing in ourselves. Two more Uni shootings again today. Should I send my kids to college to be killed? Don’t have the answers, but we can figure this out. Need to stop the binary blather, blah, blah blah, some ole BS from both sides.
@Keven
I’m only seeing one campus related shooting so far, and it’s at TSU, and that one appears to not even be on campus, but rather near it because TSU is basically snuggled up to the Houston ghetto.
Also, “enacting sensible gun control” and protecting the second amendment ARE mutually exclusive when “sensible gun control” is based around the notion that “WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING” rather than, you know, doing something effective that might be more complex than trying to push forwards the ban of an inanimate object. I’m curious as to what you think sensible gun control would look like when we’ve already got background checks for everyone who purchases a gun. If that’s not helping, than clearly the federal government is not doing their job adequately. Which, according to the “sensible gun control” crowd… is something that means we should reward them with more power and more money. Yeah, great.
By the by, I have little respect for the Republican party, but as this is one of the few conservative issues that they’re actually willing to push back on, I’m going to have to kindly ask you to stop trying to spread the political blame for the Democrat cause du jour spurring a rash of shootings from people who want to see their names come out of the mouths of national figures.
To anyone who yaps about a “gun show loophole,” I challenge you to go to a Gun Show and try and buy a gun without a background check.
Let me know how that goes for you. (Spoiler alert: You legally can’t.)
The guns sales on the internet is also a big fat lie. If you purchase a gun from an ad online and do not make a face to face purchase, the transaction needs to be handled by a licensed dealer and a background check applies. You know when a “side” has to bend the truth so much as anti gunners do, they are hiding something.
@ 2 Kilroy, There were two, one at TSU and one at Northern Arizona University (NAU). Disagree that enacting sensible gun control and protecting the second amendment are mutually exclusive…just the same lame, and unsupported, excuse to do nothing. It’s an extremely tired and worn out excuse that few in America are buying anymore (over 90% favor sensible legislation, just not sure what thet means). We do NOT have universal background checks in all states, and that is the problem. Guns purchased in other states make their way east, west, north and south. And my kids get caught up in the resultant mayhem. Not a Demonocrat here, so your request is respectfully denied. My request would be to send your kids to University, have them slaughtered and then get back to me… I’ll be here!
@Kevin #5
Nowhere did I say that it was an excuse to do nothing in general. I just don’t feel that more gun laws on the heaps and heaps we have now is somehow going to make a difference. Likewise I never suggested you were a Democrat when I asked you what kind of “sensible gun control legislation” you’d suggest, but that scaremongering and vague hope that your opposition’s family meets with something that’ll make them wail to the heavens and admit you’re right is, well… pretty damning. I’ll repeat my request for a suggestion in the hopes that you answer it.
Background checks are mandatory for every single state. 36 participate in strict adherence to the FBI NICS program, others have state-mandated systems for handguns while long guns are processed by the FBI, and California, Oregon, and others have their own state-based programs that comply with the NICS program. Not sure what else you could possibly want as far as background checks go. As it is, firearms are the most strenuously-checked purchasable item that I can think of, as nothing else comes to mind that actually requires the FBI or a proxy of the FBI to say it’s okay.
If you want all states to deal with the FBI directly, then fine, whatever. But I’m going to tell you that it doesn’t matter if there’s not increased effort to crack down on things like straw purchases, failure to recognize and prevent criminals from purchasing firearms, and an absolute lack of effort to address the fact that every single time we have one of these shootings, liberals rush to the news cameras to demonize everyone BUT the shooter. As it is, these attention-starved sickos can commit a horrendous crime, then get half the country to suddenly talk about changing our way of life without saying a single word condemning the shooter. Frankly, I’m all for protection clauses for shootings the way there are for rapists. No publicity, no fame.
I also want you to cite your source for that statistic, complete with a link to the questionnaire itself and the locations it was sent out to. If it’s a legitimate statistic, then hey, your argument is good and I won’t mention it again. If it’s bunk or unverifiable… don’t bother quoting it again. I’ll ignore it.
Also, leave out that absolute garbage last sentence next time you decide to debate. It’s sloppy and idiotic sounding, and is based more around fearmongering than actually trying to do anything. Or, in terms you might find favorable, “just the same lame, and unsupported, excuse to do damage”.
Kevin lets be sensible. We can have the same requirements for the right to bear arms as the privilege to vote, sounds sensible. Anyone that snipers an illegal alien waving a full auto weapon gets a pardon. Any Felon caught with a gun gets the death penalty.
Hey mikey remember Eric Holder arguing against FL’s felon no vote law because 1 out of 3 voting age black men are felons?
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/11/13806293-in-florida-1-in-4-blacks-of-voting-age-cannot-vote-because-of-felony-conviction
@ Kilroy, So there were actually two Uni shootings today, one at TSU and one at NAU. Unrelated and not sufficient evidence to say that either involved illegal gun use, but both involved teenagers with guns on campus.
My niece was a victim of the Aurora Theater shooting. That is my impetus for wishing that you feel the pain and then just say “oh well, we are doing all we can.” I just think it is absolute BS. We are not. I wish you an your family no ill will, just so you know where this is coming from. This is a problem that needs to be addressed. Not sure how, exactly, but let me give some hints:
As to your “seemingly” factual points:
1) Most states DO NOT require background checks at gun shows – BIG lie: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html
2) 92% of gun owners in America do support Universal background checks (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks). In addition a Quinnipiac poll from June 2014 suggests Republican leaders are at stark odds with the public on the issue. It found that voters support universal background checks by a margin of 92 to 7 percent; gun owners support the change 92 to 6 percent; and Republicans back the idea 86 to 11 percent.
3) Evidence form other countries suggests that strict gun control can lead to significant reductions in gun-related deaths (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/). Australia is a good analog for the US since it was settled with a “cowboy” mentalitymuch the same as the US.
NOTE: I see a lot of hyperbole, but no actual sources of “data” in your response. Guess you have none. Just more “same ‘ole, same ‘ole BS” talking points without source data to back them up. You work for the NRA I guess.
No answer, so we can assume it is fact that you work for the NRA,@ Kilroy.
Hey Kevin, guess what?
Go f*ck yourself.
I’m not even sorry about your niece, since the only thing you care about is using her death to attack law-abiding people and their rights. She’s worth more to you dead as a bloody flag you can wave to justify your inner fascist than she was alive.
You want to ban and confiscate guns? Fine. First state for the record that you are a mentally-ill psychotic who, if he were ever to touch a gun, would go on a killing spree in an elementary school, and therefore the government should categorically ban you from ever owning, touching, or even hearing reference to one.
Otherwise, shut up. You are demanding my rights be stripped because of your irrational fears and mental instability, and in that case, you should be committed.
Get the idea, jackass?
Wayne LaPierre is a moron. Point blank. When you have open-carry advocates saying the NRA has gone nuts under his leadership, you know you have a problem.
That said, the Left never operates in good faith. “Sensible” gun control always gives way to the ban of fire arms, and the demonization of all gun owners.
@ North DallaS 30, so sorry for you. Whatever made you into such a hate-filled human being. Suggest you get some help for that, you are better than that. Clearly no need to sate that you are a psychopath and doing your “side” no favors. We need to keep guns out of your hands, is there someway we can help? Please do not kill anyone!
Sean L, I am a gun advocate, and do not believe that the “left” is coming for me and my guns. What evidence do you have about a Hitler-esque takeover, do you have for a thought in current America? I enjoy hunting (deer and ducks) and target practice. I see no threat to my legitimate use of guns.
Kevin gives away the game when he cites Australia, where law-abiding people’s firearms were confiscated by the Government, as his ideal.
Also, violent crime in Australia has increased since law-abiding people were disarmed.
http://louderwithcrowder.com/obama-praises-australias-gun-ban-the-actual-results/
@VtK, you might want to look at this article. It may change the entire Kim Davis narrative:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/newly-uncovered-letters-from-kim-davis-could-change-the-entire-story/
It seems that Kentucky allows an exemption for county clerks who do not support hunting and fishing (i.e. animal rights advocates, vegans, etc.) not to issue those licenses and pass that duty on to someone else.
In a letter written three months before arguments were heard before the Supreme Court, and five months before the decision was announced, Kim Davis requested lawmakers in Kentucky to allow the same exemption granted for those who object to hunting and fishing to those whose religious convictions require they not participate in a same-sex marriage.
In other words, she tried, shortly after taking office, to obtain something that was already granted to others.
No, you’re not “sorry”. You’re a malicious, malignant liar, just as all leftists are — and a coward to boot.
And frankly, you’re hilarious. Your bigotry and hate are obvious in the anti-gun propaganda you spew, and your mental instability is obvious in your psychotic belief that owning a gun makes you kill people.
SJWs like you lie, you double down, and you project. Decent people like myself know that you didn’t care about your niece and that she is worth more to you dead than she was alive. Indeed, given how you want women disarmed and helpless, it wouldn’t surprise anyone if you were sexually abusing her.
What’s the matter, leftist? Not used to people calling you out on your perversions and lies?
Isn’t it funny how anti-gun puppet Kevin started out by screaming that all gun owners were nuts, no one should own guns, and that there’s no legitimate reason to have guns…and then tries to babble that he’s a gun owner and enjoys hunting?
SJWs lie, they double down, and they project. As V the K pointed out, Kevin and his ilk want confiscation. They are malicious, malevolent liars and wannabe fascists.
@Kevin #8 and 9
First of all, you waited a half hour and decided that I wasn’t going to come back. That’s really stupid. You provided links, but you object to me taking time to actually read them? This clearly shows that you are not taking this debate seriously and just want to claim that you “won”, in stark contrast to your supposed urging for reason. You’ve also refused to accept that, perhaps, there are people who disagree with you, and instead accused me of being a paid shill.
For starters, my information about the NICS program, as it is an FBI program, can all be found on the web site for the FBI. The information is simple, and is connected to a simple map of which states do what. For your own personal checking, you can easily find the information I used by checking the “participation map” in the sidebar of the NICS page.
I don’t know why you brought up your niece, as there’s no point to it other than to try and shut down the conversation via application of victim olympics. I feel compelled to mention that the Aurora shooting theater was a gun-free zone. This means it’s illegal to bring in a firearm. This means that a criminal broke a law and then broke several more by shooting people. This is not something you’re going to enjoy hearing, but in terms of restricting the rights of Americans, the fact that your niece was involved in a tragic event is not sufficient. Sorry, but it’s true. If I was shot tomorrow, it is NOT sufficient for there to be a restriction on the rights of the 300 million people in the country.
On to your sources, which I had to take time to read. It turns out that the pool of sources for the “92% favor” argument was only 1446 people out of a nation of 300 million. This is a really bad sample size for obvious reasons, but we’ll run with it for a little while. I also feel the need to mention that this is a bundled poll, and finding out the information that you cited was not the main intention, it seems. In fact, the poll asks about gun control laws, Obama’s various wars, and drone strikes. Personally, I feel this makes the poll less reliable on the whole about all these issues, whether one way or another, because it’s unfocused. I wouldn’t conduct a poll about firearms in the same breath that I ask a ton of other questions.
Now, I’ve been reading, and part of the Quinnipiac poll asks this simple question: 58. “Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States?” The results were as follows 71% of Republicans opposed, 17% of Democrats opposed, and 52% of Independents opposed.
Now, moving a question downwards: 59. “Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?” THIS is where the 92% quote comes from, and herein is where the lies are. As a gun owner, sure! I DO support a background check! In fact, the system we have now, while a little more invasive than I like, is something that I can (let’s use our keywords!) compromise on! Here’s what your vaunted study leaves out. This is not asking about a “universal background check” that involves a gun registry, and it is likewise not asking about making it more invasive. It’s asking about ANY check. That means it could also be asking about a check that’s LESS invasive than the one we have now. The remainder of the gun questions seemed to be about mental illness, and I couldn’t find anything about registries or similar nonsense.
And here we have it. The study asks a vague question and gets a lot of answers that say “yes” because it matches our current system. No shocks there.
I also looked into the governing.com link. While that site doesn’t really seem to be anything special, the site that did the data correlation about gun shows is. The site that they got this information from is the “Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence” and praises California-style gun control and Obama-style politicization of the issue. Frankly, with a source like that, the governing.com link is worthless, particularly when its information map takes private sales into account. These include, I believe, say, your friend selling you one of his guns or your father leaving you his guns in a will. There’s no gun show I’ve ever heard of that permits you to just walk in and purchase a firearm without a background check.
I’m glad I noticed that VtheK already addressed your Australia deal, but let me also point out that Australia has never had a history of mass shootings BEFORE the massive firearm confiscation from the government, and that they have still had mass shootings afterwards. So… clearly this didn’t tighten up their last little bit of laws in order to prevent mass shootings entirely, nor did it make things substantially safer, as their violent crime hasn’t magically plummeted.
If you think that Australian gun control is what we should emulate, and is sensible, then I have no choice but to tell you “No”, and also tell you that it’s likely that you’re going to have to send men with guns to take guns from everyone else. If you like this paradox and approve of the government being the sole bearers of firearms, and in fact blessed with the divine right to take those firearms and use them to disarm the populace, then I cannot help you further.
Apologies for how long this post is, but the NRA really makes me work for my dollars! Phew! That’s sarcasm for those amongst you who are denser than a collapsed star.
Wow @ North Dakllas 30, Thanks for the sentiment. Thought this site was for intelligent conservative conversation. Guess moderation is overlooked. You seem to be the angry and unstable one here, that is really scary. I appreciate the convo with @Kilroy and @ Steve. No idea where you got the idea that I would ever support the ban and confiscation of guns. I am a gun owner, and I stated that fact. I personally think that your comments show a degree of mentally instability. Nor a professional, but just saying…..
Kileoy @ 18, I really appreciate the data and resources you provided. I will certainly look at these and provide a response, not necessarily critical. I’d be more interested in ideas on how to stop this carnage rather than supporting current legislation, which I think is inadequate. Can we do this, as a people? I known I am mourning now, which is the worst time, but can we do this? Arming every American is both naive and foolish.
@Kevin #20
If it helps, I’ve also looked over the information provided about the NAU shooting. Frankly, I don’t think that deserves any more weight than any other criminal event either. The early responses I’ve seen seem to indicate that it was two groups of people who had an altercation, and then one started shooting with 1 dead and 3 wounded. Frankly, the only inconvenience is the location, as this could have happened anywhere two groups of people decided to mess with each other at.
Frankly, it sounds like more gang-related stuff, which is where a lot of violent crime comes from anyhow. More laws will not solve this sort of thing as much as the continued enforcement of current laws will.
If you’re upset, take heart! There’s plenty of statistics out there that state quite clearly that even as the number of Americans owning firearms increases, the number of violent crimes in general are decreasing. And isn’t that a warming thought?
Again, send me the links to the data, my own research tells me an entirely different story, especially as it relaters to other countries, not unlike ours. Do you agree, at least, that stopping the carnage/killings is a good thing? If not, then we have nothing to talk about.
Again, send me the links to the data, my own research tells me an entirely different story, especially as it relaters to other countries, not unlike ours. Do you agree, at least, that stopping the carnage/killings is a good thing? If not, then we have nothing to talk about.
It is. But since you’re neither intelligent or conservative, and in fact are an irrational liberal barking-mad moonbat, you wouldn’t understand.
Yes, fascists tend to be frightened of an armed populace that punches back and has no intention of letting you live out your statist confiscation fantasies.
Which is why you came in shrieking that “something must be done”, calling gun owners murderers who killed your niece, and getting all googly-eyed and swooning over Australia’s confiscation regimen.
You’re also a malignant and malicious liar who accused all gun owners and he NRA of murdering your niece. So why should we believe you?
No surprise; leftists from Hitler through Mao and Stalin have always declared people who disagree with them mentally ill, and it’s a proud unethical and unscientific Democrat Party tradition.
My suggestion: go running back to your echo chamber.
It’s rather entertaining, isn’t it?
Kevin wants to stop the carnage – so he screams at and demands harassment and punishment of law-abiding gun owners while utterly refusing to acknowledge or confront the criminals actually doing the shooting.
I guess the coward Kevin is afraid to criticize people who ACTUALLY shoot others. Better to bully and attack law-abiding citizens.
I’m going to give you another warning to stop the emotional rhetoric and blackmail, Kevin. It’s an excessively shameful thing to employ, and makes you seem two-faced when you made appeals to reason earlier.
Yes, stopping killings is a good thing. No one says it isn’t. To claim that your opposition is not interested in stopping it is absolutely ridiculous and is the basis of a middle schooler’s logic rather than an adult’s. Act your age.
For your edification I provide this article from Time, which is, incidentally, not even a publication that I tend to agree with a lot of times, but this time it’s based no on their opinions, but, again, data released from the FBI on crime statistics. So here: http://time.com/3577026/crime-rates-drop-1970s/
I don’t know what kind of research you’re doing, but frankly it sounds like you’re doing the wrong kind. Frankly, comparing our country to other countries is a logical fallacy. No two countries are alike, and there’s less a chance of other countries’ methods, especially when they’re debatable, functioning here. What you should be looking at is improving our country within the scope of our own nation. If the violent crime rate of our country is decreasing, then it’s decreasing. Considering gun ownership is on the rise and Americans are buying more guns than ever, this might just mean that you need to revise your argument that somehow gun confiscation/bans are the way to make things better.
As for “stopping the carnage” (Nice word, by the way. Makes things seem more threatening and dire than they actually are), if you think that there’s a such thing as completely ending violent crime, then I really don’t think that there’s any possibility that we can have a sane argument. In all of human history we haven’t managed to end violence, and the reason for that is that there will always be bad people who do bad things, no matter what snuggly laws get passed.
Do I have any “true solutions” to any of this? Of course not. You can’t ask me to solve a problem as old as humanity. But in the other things I’ve said, I’ve clearly already laid out at least one idea that would assist in stopping mass shootings, and that’s to not give the shooter any kind of fame as a result. If you send the message to other wannabes that their names will not make the news, and that their manifestos will not be read on national TV, and that the president of the United States will not use what they did to launch a highly politicized campaign, then lo and behold, you might just see those attention-starved madmen decrease in number! Likewise on the law enforcement end it’ll be important to actually investigate things like straw purchases and illegal dealings, but that’s hard compared to just pushing through a new law that will be followed by the law abiding, isn’t it?
Furthermore I don’t buy into the belief that setting up locations where everyone is disarmed is a prudent policy. Even amongst the news reports, we’ve seen that in so many different cases, that when a madman is confronted by an armed person, they tend to self-destruct. As all of the events that have you so terrified have been ended by armed policemen… why should you object so strongly to an armed citizen stopping the shooter instead? So long as your objective is, genuinely, to make things safer, you surely couldn’t object to the means, correct?
Well, at least we know that Kilroy works for the NRA.
To address his points:
1) I never wanted to “win” this debate, there is no winner, just wanted to relay a very personal story that could elucidate my personal position, not speaking for anyone else.
2) Obviously @ kilroy is a shill for the NRA, no surprise
3) Liars on Australian gun laws: Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.
4) Paid liars and shills from the NRA will always mislead, but you should check the facts. http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html)
IF YOU don’t want someone you love murdered, check the facts. Always important.
You know, I’ve been thinking, and furthermore Kevin, I want you to address the points I refuted in that rather long post. You’ve kind of said nothing about it, and I don’t take kindly to that when your point was exposed for being less than it actually was. You can either continue to defend it, or you can admit that you were wrong.
This is a fucking insane and ridiculous website. You are all smoking something that is probably illegal in in most countries. I will have nothing to do with your operation, you are a total fucking joke of humanity,
Well, I’ve read your recent post Kevin, and frankly I’ve got nothing more to say to you.
Frankly, you refuse to actually address anything that I’ve said, and instead reply with “LOL KILROY WORKS FOR THE NRA, LOOK AT ME I’M CLEVER” really does point to you not giving two shits about the issue, and instead says that you just favor an increase in government power under the guise of “doing something”. Again, I don’t care about your personal position. When you want to suggest legislation that is going to affect a large percent of over 300 million Americans, your personal tragedies have no place in the debate.
Furthermore, as you’ve conducted not one, but two attacks on my character as a debater, I feel no shame in replying in kind.
Kevin, you are not a conservative. You’re a liar. You may even think that you’re a conservative, but you’re here talking about how you want to expand government power, seize firearms, and support fallacious arguments about Australia’s ridiculous measures. Mass shootings were not common in Australia’s history in general even before the shooting, reaching a maximum gap of 43 years.
I don’t usually link Wikipedia, but here you are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
Notice that mass murders still happen in Australia, sadly enough. But… I suppose those are acceptable considering that they weren’t done with guns.
In short, Kevin, I’m tired of talking to you, and invite you to take a long walk off a short pier.
Folks, there’s a lot more here:
What he calls “Procedural Niceties” the rest of us would call “the Constitutional Separation of Powers.”
I would have just said:
What he calls “Procedural Niceties” the rest of us would call “the Constitution.” Period.
Kevin, I will take your bait, but shift the pond. What do you propose to do about the ghettos, particularly in Democrat stronghold Chicago, where kids with guns control the environment and culture?
It would seem to me that if you really wanted to profile the likely gun abuser, lunatic or just-plain-rotten character, you would go where the bullets constantly fly and the bodies pile up.
What would you expect to find? Maybe blacks and Hispanics should be barred from obtaining guns. Maybe tattooed people should be barred. Maybe school dropouts should be heavily profiled. Whoa! let’s see if there is a connection between guns and drugs.
Lets broaden this. Lets PROFILE every single person who has car wrecks and speeding tickets and drunk driving citations and ban guns, radios, lipstick and cell phones from their lives.
Lets search every home of every person who has ever had an assault charge levied again him and confiscate every knife, baseball bat, gun, brick and peashooter in his environment. Or, maybe, just maybe, we should lop off his fingers so he can’t use a gun or hold a knife.
I really, really don’t want you “to send your kids to college to be killed.” Or raped or turned into boozed-up drop-out losers. I feel your fear. I understand your sense of inadequacy. Since lunatics with guns have all but destroyed the safety of every classroom in the US, you have a conundrum. I suggest you home-school your college age kids. And since tragedy is to be avoided, keep them out of movie theaters, automobiles, crossing streets and putting “substances” down their throats on in their veins. Helicopter over them. Drone them. Do not prepare them for risk of any sort. Take that mantle of protection on your shoulders alone.
Now, Kevin, I suggest that you line up every single mass killer profile and you figure out how to nab them before they throw a pressure cooker bomb over the transom or blow up a kindergarten with a fertilizer bomb or go postal in a classroom or theater.
After all, it is the nut with the trigger finger who makes the gun kill, not the inanimate object that has to be loaded, aimed and fired.
You won’t, absolutely will not permit profiling. You will not permit the black on black perps to be arrested, because you won’t permit statistics to become racially “disproportionate.”
And, by the way, how many of these mass killers have not been white? Now there is a jim-dandy “causation” possibility to exploit. There must be a flaw in the white DNA that Obamacare can cure with stem cells from aborted fetuses.
Kevin, I really do feel your pain. The Big Rock Candy Mountain is for unicorns, tolerance, diversity and above average people to thrive in carefree unity. What with stink bugs, bed bugs, HIV, guns, carbon dioxide, religion, conservatives, the drudgery of work, etc. we have to come to the universal question: What’s it all about, Alfie?
FWIW, I don’t believe “Kevin” is a gun owner, I don’t believe he’s a Conservative (lots of comments attacking Conservatives and a few praising Obama as a “patriot” who “loves his country.”) I am dubious when he claims to be related to a victim of Aurora. I do believe that he favors Australia-style gun confiscation, else he wouldn’t be going on and on about how awesome and crime-free Australia is.
But whether he is what he claims to be is not the issue. The issue is that the Democrat Party is happy to bypass the Constitution in order to deprive people of Human Rights. One of these rights is the Right of Self-Defense.
And the match goes to V the K. Nicely done.
Kevin, IMO you are a liar or an idiot, or possibly both, and you should go away and leave us the hell alone.
Also, awesome and cime free Australia is the place where a Muslim youth of fifteen years of age recently shot an Asian police officer dead. Pretty sure he was not legally able to own the gun he used. Ditto the idiot who terrorised a chocolate shop in Sydney some time back, and another idiot who shot two men and a woman in 2007 with a pistol which, again, was already illegal in Australia.
I
Anyone else find it funny “Kevin” cries about NDT calling him out, but then does the exact same thing to Kilroy.
By Kevin’s standards, he clearly works for the Chinese Communists.
Hmm, no reply from Kevin, in 90 minutes? By his standards he’s admitted he works for the Chinese Communists.
So much publicity and leftist organizations exist to abridge our Constitutional rights, control our lives and abolish capitalism. Here’s the hypocrisy, it requires money and a lot of it. How many multimillionaires and billionaires, besides George Soros, and the environmentalist nut, whose name escapes me, are there funding these organizations? They tout redistribution of wealth, but does anybody in their right mind think that those monied leftist will dispose of their fortunes? Have they made an alliance or a pact between to seize power? It might not be domestic but international in scope. In other words a vast left wing conspiracy.
You know, I could forgive gun-control advocates who think that making schools gun-free zones with locked doors and unarmed guard will protect children (when clearly they become a magnet for those looking for attention in the worst way).
I could forgive them, except they have put those children in deadly danger as a result.
Three things : Australia does not have a Bill of Rights, we do. Universal Background Checks can only work if there is also a system of gun registration. The sentence, “I believe in the 2nd Amendment but ….” means you do not believe in the 2nd Amendment.
Let’s consider a few things a “Universal Background Check” criminalizes:
– A father who loans a pistol to his daughter when she is being stalked by a dangerous ex-boyfriend.
– A hunter who loans his best friend his favorite hunting rifle.
– A husband who goes out of the country for a period of time and leaves his firearms in the custody of his wife and children.
A UBC has absolutely no effect whatsoever on a criminal who steals a firearm or buys it from another criminal.
Gun-control advocates will never admit it, but the only way to stop incidents like Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Aurora would be to pass a law that prevented people from buying or owning guns if they were on medication that was known to cause cognitive dissociation, or if a dependent was on such medication.
Of course, that would mean that the Left would have to admit that not all people with mental health issues are the stars of inspirational Lifetime/Oscar-bait movies; some are actually quite dangerous to the public. Witness the blathering of Leftist twat John Oliver about how dare the Right bring up mental health after a person with mental health issues goes postal.