More Gun Control?

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but, I can assure you if he had an AR-15 single fire only, the carnage could have been just as bad... Originally Posted by nickjaguar

You make some good points, (but man, add some paragraph breaks!)

We can keep the 2nd amendment alive without making it far too easy for mass murder. Other developed countries do a far far better job than we do. Even with the challenges in regards to enforcement, I hope you recognize that something different needs to be attempted and implemented now.

The heart of the issue is not inanimate objects.

The libs are going to go ape shit over this, but some HIPAA rights are going to have to be given up. Criminal background checks are no longer enough. Histories of mental illness treatment and psychotropic drug use must be taken into consideration before a purchase can be made.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but, I can assure you if he had an AR-15 single fire only, the carnage could have been just as bad. I'd say the the same for a fully auto M-16. Why? The bump stock he used allows for a high cyclic rate of fire but very little accuracy. Same for a fully auto M-16. Originally Posted by nickjaguar

I don't disagree on the accuracy part but when you are firing into a dense crowd of people you don't need accuracy. Whether or not a person with an AR-15 single fire only could have done the same amount of damage is debatable.

I am happy to see that many in congress seem to be seriously looking at some type of ban on the bump stock. The NRA SEEMS to be supporting a ban, although the wording of their statement is somewhat vague. I was surprised that many in congress, including Paul Ryan, were clueless as to what a bump stock was. Even I, who has never owned a gun, knew of it.

This is the first time in my life that I have supported a law that would restrict gun owner's rights. I do not like some of the gun laws on the books and some proposed ones, but I have accepted them. In this case, I see absolutely no reason why a bump stock should be available to citizens.

The heart of the issue is not inanimate objects.

The libs are going to go ape shit over this, but some HIPAA rights are going to have to be given up. Criminal background checks are no longer enough. Histories of mental illness treatment and psychotropic drug use must be taken into consideration before a purchase can be made. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Well actually you wouldn't violate HIPAA if all you asked was that psychiatrists disclose patients they believe would endanger the public if they had access to guns. It's actually accepted practice with their "duty to protect". So if all a reasonable person is asking is that we add some extra protection for people deemed a possible treat to themselves or others by their psychiatrists, that's not too much.

The NRA SEEMS to be supporting a ban, although the wording of their statement is somewhat vague. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You and dimretards like you can try to demonize the NRA all you want to, but you'll look like an idiot if you do. That jig is up and, if you'll forgive the pun, that dog won't hunt. Everybody knows that nobody does more to promote gun safety and protect law abiding citizens' rights to "keep and bear arms" for sport and self defense and for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals than the NRA. Certainly more than the ACLU, the NAACP, and renegade liberal judges like the ones they have in Chicago who ignore sentencing guidelines for those convicted of crimes committed with firearms.

The NRA does not promote mass shootings. To say they do is asinine.
I've seen the dimretards do it and they do look pretty stupid.

You and dimretards like you can try to demonize the NRA all you want to, but you'll look like an idiot if you do. That jig is up and, if you'll forgive the pun, that dog won't hunt. Everybody knows that nobody does more to promote gun safety and protect law abiding citizens' rights to "keep and bear arms" for sport and self defense and for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals than the NRA. Certainly more than the ACLU, the NAACP, and renegade liberal judges like the ones they have in Chicago who ignore sentencing guidelines for crimes committed with firearms.

The NRA does not promote mass shootings. To say they do is asinine. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

The NRA certainly does some good but in my OPINION they go overboard in some cases in "protecting" gun owner's rights. For instance, the NRA supports constitutional carry. I don't. All I was saying is that this is the FIRST time I remember the NRA supporting anything that in anyway would restrict gun owner's rights.

Of course the NRA does not promote mass shootings. But here is their chance to stand up and do something that might stop future mass shootings. If they support the ban of bump stocks I will applaud them.

You and dimretards like you can try to demonize the NRA all you want to, but you'll look like an idiot if you do. That jig is up and, if you'll forgive the pun, that dog won't hunt. Everybody knows that nobody does more to promote gun safety and protect law abiding citizens' rights to "keep and bear arms" for sport and self defense and for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals than the NRA. Certainly more than the ACLU, the NAACP, and renegade liberal judges like the ones they have in Chicago who ignore sentencing guidelines for those convicted of crimes committed with firearms.

The NRA does not promote mass shootings. To say they do is asinine.
I've seen the dimretards do it and they do look pretty stupid. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

My god do you bigot conservatives have anything to say other than Chicago. Some one says police brutality, and it's what about Chicago and black-on-black crime. Some one says mass murders and what about Chicago. Add that to the fact you had to throw the NAACP in there when talking about guns. You might want to watch out, you're showing where your true heart lies.

The NRA certainly does some good but in my OPINION they go overboard in some cases in "protecting" gun owner's rights. For instance, the NRA supports constitutional carry. I don't. All I was saying is that this is the FIRST time I remember the NRA supporting anything that in anyway would restrict gun owner's rights.

Of course the NRA does not promote mass shootings. But here is their chance to stand up and do something that might stop future mass shootings. If they support the ban of bump stocks I will applaud them. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You should go back and listen to what has been said. They were lose with their words. There isn't talk of banning the bump stock, just regulating it. That's why people went out and bought them up recently. So sadly, in theory, someone who wants a repeat of what just happen could have gotten their hands on one already.

LOL GFE you need to get over yourself. Nobody will go apeshit over anything you have to say.

A case can be made that his access to guns may have lowered the casualty count and not increased it. Look at what happened in Barcelona. How many more people would have been killed if he had driven a semi tractor/trailer into that crowd? Look at what Tim McVeigh did in Oklahoma City. How many more people would have been killed if he had driven a truck full of fertilizer into the crowd and set it off?

We should be happy his "gun culture" led him to use mere bullets and not "weapons of mass destruction."

Stop blaming the fork for obesity. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Whispers and 10 other old fat white dudes won a class action lawsuit against Oneida.

A case can be made that his access to guns may have lowered the casualty count and not increased it. Look at what happened in Barcelona. How many more people would have been killed if he had driven a semi tractor/trailer into that crowd? Look at what Tim McVeigh did in Oklahoma City. How many more people would have been killed if he had driven a truck full of fertilizer into the crowd and set it off?

We should be happy his "gun culture" led him to use mere bullets and not "weapons of mass destruction." Originally Posted by pussycat

What crazy logic is that? A case could be made that had no one gotten to him, with the arsenal he had, he would have killed hundreds of people. I find it hilarious that you used quotations around gun culture and WMD but didn't use it around mere bullets. Since when has it ever been a mere bullet, tell you want, let me have a guy take a gun and shoot you with a "mere bullet" and you tell me how that feels if he doesn't shoot you in your stupid fucking face. The stupidity to say mere bullet when we are talking about people losing lives. Yeah people can use a car to hurt people. People can use a bomb. But here in this nation, and not in Barcelona, most mass murders are being carried out with guns. Sorry we are not all bulletproof like you, bullets are mere things to us.

My god do you bigot conservatives have anything to say other than Chicago. Some one says police brutality, and it's what about Chicago and black-on-black crime. Some one says mass murders and what about Chicago. Add that to the fact you had to throw the NAACP in there when talking about guns. You might want to watch out, you're showing where your true heart lies. Originally Posted by Austin Dude

Can't be helped. They're such shining examples of liberalism's destruction of society.
If black lives really matter then you would begin to care that many more thousands of blacks have died at the hands of other blacks than have died because of white cops.

"weapons of mass destruction." Originally Posted by pussycat

You mean like the kind the Russians make when a certain Secretary of State approves the sale of 25% of the US's weapons grade uranium to them? That put a target on all of our backs.

You should go back and listen to what has been said. They were lose with their words. There isn't talk of banning the bump stock, just regulating it. That's why people went out and bought them up recently. So sadly, in theory, someone who wants a repeat of what just happen could have gotten their hands on one already. Originally Posted by Austin Dude

I know EXACTLY what the NRA said which is why, in my first post, I said the NRA SEEMS to be supporting a ban. Just today they are saying they would not support a ban on the bump stocks. I doubt they supported the ban on the M-16 and AK-47 either. Yes, sadly, people went out and bought out the supplies of available bump stocks.

I still say I am very happy that politicians on BOTH sides are looking at the issue rather than just saying how sad they are that so many people were killed and wounded. We'll see what happens.

Can't be helped. They're such shining examples of liberalism's destruction of society.
If black lives really matter then you would begin to care that many more thousands of blacks have died at the hands of other blacks than have died because of white cops. Originally Posted by gfejunkie

If black lives really matter then you would begin to care that many more thousands of blacks have died at the hands of other blacks than have died because of white cops.


That's the thing a bigot like you wouldn't know. There are actually more rallies and marches to combat black-on-black crime than there are for police killings. You just wouldn't know because you don't know people in the communities that are fighting it and it's not shown on the news. Maybe educate yourself on things before speaking dumb ass. Black-on-black crime doesn't lessen the overwhelming percentage of Africans Americans killed by police officers. Two things can be a problem at the same time. So yeah we are in the communities trying to combat black-on-black crime, what are you doing to combat the needless killings of African Americans? Nothing right.

Also, more white people have died at the hands of white people since you kill people closest to you. But for some reason white people are more afraid of a black teen in a hoodie or a 12 yr old with a toy gun than people who look like them.

And the NAACP is an example of the destruction of society? Why because their goal is to push for the advancement of minorities? The horror.

Oh and to put the if in front of black lives matter, you are making it seem as though it's a question. Do you not believe they matter? If so, maybe go with since or yes as the opening word. But a person like you probably doesn't think they matter.