Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read of many others who agree with me. And I'll take knee jerk reaction, especially when it comes to gun violence that could perhaps have been prevented had there been some common sense applied like background checks and cooling off periods.
Background checks are already required. Cooling off periods mean that someone has a period of time before they can protect them self.
Background checks are already required. Cooling off periods mean that someone has a period of time before they can protect them self.
Yeah, ask the people in the LA Riots about that "cooling off period." By the time things "cooled off," their entire business was burnt to the ground and some of them were seriously injured or dead.
Don't need to. This gun violence is getting out of hand and I hope to hell some of these politicians grow a pair and address it. But I don't think they will.
Handguns killed more people in Chicago last year than all school shootings in US history combined.
Funny, nobody seemed to think gun violence was getting out of hand until the gun violence left the urban areas where both victim and perpetrator tend to be poor (lowest income quintile) black males between 16-24 years old.
St Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Birmingham, Memphis et al. Run the numbers, year after year, and until the crime finds a school or hospital, or the perpetrator is white, or uses a politically convenient weapon/tactic, nobody cares.
The inner city black person has been living a gun crime nightmare for more than 60 years, and nobody cares. In fact, given the current political winds and the various woke narratives, America seems hell bent to make the inner city gun violence nightmare far worse for black people.
But hey, as long as we keep the rarest example of gun violence from happening, the hundreds of black males dying every year in like 30 different cities will be fine because their deaths don't count. Gun violence only matters if it doesn't follow the social engineering plan and cultural narratives. Young, urban black males getting zapped by the hundreds is part of the plan, so it's all good.
Handguns killed more people in Chicago last year than all school shootings in US history combined.
Funny, nobody seemed to think gun violence was getting out of hand until the gun violence left the urban areas where both victim and perpetrator tend to be poor (lowest income quintile) black males between 16-24 years old.
St Louis, Baltimore, New Orleans, Birmingham, Memphis et al. Run the numbers, year after year, and until the crime finds a school or hospital, or the perpetrator is white, or uses a politically convenient weapon/tactic, nobody cares.
The inner city black person has been living a gun crime nightmare for more than 60 years, and nobody cares. In fact, given the current political winds and the various woke narratives, America seems hell bent to make the inner city gun violence nightmare far worse for black people.
But hey, as long as we keep the rarest example of gun violence from happening, the hundreds of black males dying every year in like 30 different cities will be fine because their deaths don't count. Gun violence only matters if it doesn't follow the social engineering plan and cultural narratives. Young, urban black males getting zapped by the hundreds is part of the plan, so it's all good.
You can thank the politicians and media for sweeping this stuff under the rug. Again, it would show how many of their policies have been complete failures.
"But yeah, the second amendment, needs to go. The constitution isn't a suicide pact."
I'm willing to discuss and maybe even concede some things as a person who believes in the rights afforded by the 2A. But when I see comments like this it is very obvious that your side will never concede and this will always remain a fight. Meaning no meaningful change can ever take place. Congrats. Or something.
Well, if the 2A needs to go or be modified, than I say the 1A needs to be greatly modified, along with several more of the Amendments, along with the 14A.
So if we get rid or modify ONE Amendment, then let’s get rid of or modify all of the Amendments.
As for “discussing” anything with the Left, that’s not even possible since to the Left, it means surrendering completely without “discussing” the issue.
The Left has ZERO credibility, which is why the Right isn’t willing to “discuss” anything with you. The funny part is that the Left doesn’t see it or understand why the Right doesn’t trust them.
As for the Left’s argument that when the United States Constitution was created, they didn’t see the AR being developed in the future or the meaning of 2A only covers hunting for food. Well, if that’s the Left’s stance then when the Constitution was first created, they didn’t foresee the radio, TV or the internet, so let’s modify the 1A to fit or reflect our modern times.
With that said, how WILLING is the Left to “discuss” these modifications since I feel that the 4A, 5A, along with the 14A could use some tweaking to fit within our modern times.
The 308 or 30-06 have WAY MORE ENERGY at ANY RANGE than the 223 remington.
It doesn't do "just as well" in terms of energy. It does far worse.
Still enough to get the job done (usually), but it's far less powerful than the 308 or 30-06. Just looking at them side by side would obviously explain that. Which do you think is the weakest here?
im not saying its weaker - ever. look again, at ballistic charts and what energies are considered fatal or adequate or whatever the armorers have deemed. the 223 far exceeds what the military requires for close in drills and lethality to 500 yds. your soldier is carrying a what, 20% lighter weapon and twice the ammo...which is more effective. THAT is why we got here. Its not my words, its theirs and well documented.
The irony of the whole thing is that a "ban" doesn't ban anything. The 94 ban was symbolic. You could still buy an AR or AK during that ten year period.
buttstocks, handguards, pistol grips are scary and make the ar 15 look really deadly, more deadly than a handgun. i mean, if we want to ban the AR, why not ban all deadly weapons? give the democrats time, they will take away the 2nd, then the 1st, then the 5th. then, everything will be perfect just like back in the good old days before people ever killed one another
Conservatives took away the 4th following 3000 people getting killed.
It’s called the Patriot Act.
So if conservatives don’t care about the constitution for 3000 people killed one time why should liberals care about it for 20000 people a year?
Please make a stronger argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
