It hasn't been 24 hours, another Trumpjugend shoots up a place in Ohio

The fact that republicans are trying to deflect with the tired old "vidya games did it" argument, and the fact that Trump is deleting social media posts mentioning "invasion" (of which there are thousands), is damning. They know they're responsible and are trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

This rampage wasn’t politically motivated. It was personal vendetta driven. Unlike Trump’s terrorists who do it in his name and repeat his talking points in manifestos, and even as they’re murdering people. So, no, not AOC, or any other liberal is responsible for this. Conservatives are still responsible for this because of gun proliferation. The kind of gun he had should not be publicly available, but conservatives want more. 36 casualties in under a minute, because he had an assault rifle with a 100 round drum. Just like the Aurora shooter, who got 80 casualties plus in just over a minute. These weapons are more dangerous than bombs, and anyone can get their hands on one at anytime. Originally Posted by supercold1

Wrong again sweetheart. It wasn't an "assault rifle". That would be a select fire weapon. You can't get a gun anytime. You have to wait for a NICS background check.

Keep showing your ass. Moron.

No, you don't. Wait times are essentially at the gun seller's discretion. The way the laws are written, anybody can sell any gun to any person at anytime, and it's totally legal. Some call it the "gun show loophole", but a more accurate term would be "gun sale loophole". Also, look up what is legally defined as an "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" in nearly every state. It's a rifled, semi-automatic weapon. Some also include SMGs, some kinds of handguns and shotguns, in that classification. Gun nuts are full of lies and misinformation to protect their toys and push their massacre agenda. You don;t like the name for what it is, because it sounds bad. Well, that's because it is. Also, Trump revoked Obama-Era background checks for people with mental illness, and now he's trying to blame mental illness, so conservatives can't lean on that excuse anymore. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...mental-n727221 Republicans just don't care, they just want gun-lobby money and a populace that lives in fear.

Nope. Not the definition of an “assault rifle’. I sell guns for a living. You’re wrong.

You couldn’t be more ignorant if you tried. Leftist fool.

Yeah, it doesn't surprise me at all that you sell guns for a living.

Well, courts would disagree with you.

(Sigh) Pointless semantics. An "assault rifle" generally refers to rifles that can switch fire modes, which includes semi-automatic. A purely semi automatic rifle would called and "assault weapon". Now leave the pedantry behind and address the issue. The issue is that these weapons are too dangerous to be publicly available. Especially if republicans aren;t even going to be serious about "mental health", like they claim to be. They are more dangerous than bombs. The casualties the Boston Marathon Bombers got nothing in casualties compared to these wackos. These weapons are bombs that let you choose precisely where you want to put the shrapnel.

Nope. Not the definition of an “assault rifle’. I sell guns for a living. You’re wrong. Originally Posted by DulcetTones

Since you claim to sell "guns" for a living, can you tell me how many type of "guns" , of the modern type, not muskets and revolutionary long rifles, there are in existence that a collector could possibly own?

In America, you can own as many guns as you want. I don't want the government to tell me how many guns I can own. My dad owned over 200 guns. They were kept in a locked closet and we were instructed not to touch them until we learned how to properly use them. Never had a problem. Of course, that was back in the day.
Sweetie, this comes down to the Second Amendment. If you want to change gun laws then you will have to get a candidate to run that will do that for you. Congress would have to change the constitution and - being realistic - that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Since you claim to sell "guns" for a living, can you tell me how many type of "guns" , of the modern type, not muskets and revolutionary long rifles, there are in existence that a collector could possibly own? Originally Posted by stikiwikit

You are a fool!!!

Are you referring to me?

You are a fool!!! Originally Posted by pleasurem

@AustinEllem: I was not making reference to how many "guns" an individual can possess at one time. I was making reference to how many "types" of guns there are on the market to potentially purchase or collect. I don't know much about guns but I mean , for example, a .22 rifle, a 410 Ga. rile, a 38 special, a 9mm, etc.


Wikipedia list a whole lot and is asking for folks to supplem4ent the list.

In America, you can own as many guns as you want. I don't want the government to tell me how many guns I can own. My dad owned over 200 guns. They were kept in a locked closet and we were instructed not to touch them until we learned how to properly use them. Never had a problem. Of course, that was back in the day.
Sweetie, this comes down to the Second Amendment. If you want to change gun laws then you will have to get a candidate to run that will do that for you. Congress would have to change the constitution and - being realistic - that's not going to happen anytime soon. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

No, Congress would NOT have to change the Constitution to enact gun control laws. Gun control laws exist in virtually every state in this country. Some states have very strict gun laws and some not so strict. A federal judge recently upheld California's ban on certain semi-automatic weapons. California is one of 7 states with such bans.

Some guns such as the M-16 and AK-47, deemed to be military assault weapons, are banned unless you want to go through many hoops to purchase one.

For the most part, the Federal government has delegated the authority to enact gun control legislation to the states. At times, the laws enacted by the states are contested in the court of law, up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court. Their decisions have gone both ways.

So, to repeat, any new gun control legislation would not need a rewriting of the Constitution.

Are you are talking about "police power" or the Federal government? I'm talking about the federal government - not the states. Yes, individual states can regulate guns.
"The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. ... In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms.Jun 26, 2015"