Why Restricting Guns & Magazines in NOT the Answer

It blows my mind how Republicans continue to walk head-first into a train and attempt to do nothing about it.

Other than the 2004 election, which was basically a referendum on 9/11 leadership and immediate response, they've been beaten in national elections for over a decade. Other than 2004, the last presidential election in which they won the popular vote was 1988. The trends of demographics and public opinion on social issues are rapidly going against them. And rejecting the wishes of 90% of the public is supposedly the answer?

Democrats aren't infallible, but instead of attempting to reconfigure the GOP as a viable alternative, they're stubbornly going into full-defense mode and pandering to the extreme minority factions that are driving moderates away. It might buy the current Republican party a few extra years, considering limited voter turnout in non-presidential elections. But in the big picture, they're making a mountain out of a hill.

 

They're celebrating the rights of the mentally unstable to still buy firearms. Yay for liberty!

 

The way republicans are running their party? It's coming

 

Please explain how I can buy a gun over the internet without a background check.

this will be good. :grin:

 

background check, FAILED
AWB, FAILED
mag ban, FAILED
vet ban bill, FAILED
other stuff, FAILED

 

And another lie from you, how sad. These results fall outside of the margin of error.

Who do you think better reflects your views on guns, President Obama or the National Rifle Association?

15% of Dems said NRA, only 8% of republicans said Obama. This was over 2.5 months ago, and public opinion has shifted even further since then.

The NRA represents american's views better than Obama.

 

Not quite a lie. If it fell strictly within the margin of error I would have said that. I said basically. The margin of error was 2.3 percent. Which basically covers the 3 percent difference. It's off by seven tenths of a percent.

Calling something another lie without finding a first lie doesn't really work out. You certainly are very defensive and quick to attack posters rather than just deal with the facts. What is it you feel you need to cover up with your attacking manner?

 

Your thinking is incredibly shallow. It's not that black and white.

Ever stop and think WHY there is less crime in rural areas?

and you want to RESTRICT guns where there is more crime?

 

I pointed out all of your lies in the other thread, anyone reading the thread can see the pattern.

As for dealing with, and avoiding facts - I leave that for you guys. I deal strictly with the facts and laugh and point at people who get them wrong. On both sides of the issue.

Honestly you know so little about the technical and legal aspects of firearms you should really ask yourself if you are a responsible gun owner. I don't feel you are. Hopefully you are playing dumb for a political reason.

 

If you want to believe anything I posted in the other thread was a lie, I can't stop you, and I really don't care.

As you do in this thread you wanted to attack others and call them ignorant. Of course when I finally came out and spelled out for you that the weapon didn't fit as an "assault weapon" in that ban you apparently didn't know that since you had given an either/or rationale why her weapon was legal. Yet despite you not knowing that you were the one calling everyone else ignorant and whining about other people needing to do their research.

I'm a responsible gun owner, alright and keep my weapons and ammo locked in different places when in storage. It's amazing how you want so badly to portray me as ignorant of the laws (I freely admit there are plenty of aspects of the laws that I'm not an expert on) yet you haven't really shown any of those.

I was curious why you are so eager to call people names without bothering to wait and find out if they even apply. I guess even that's starting to get boring in your case though.

 

have you?

 

The model and year has not been publicly released so you made up your own facts. This is generally referred to as a LIE. I posted the actual facts. It was either not an "assault weapon" or it was manufactured before 1994.

Here you said gunshow sales are not required to have a background check. Lie.

Spoiler

Here you said the gun would have been illegal under the assault weapons ban that was lifted in 2004. Since that effectively didn't happen in CT, you lied

Spoiler

Here you said the 30 round magazines would have been illegal under the national ban. Again, LIE. They would have only been illegal if manufactured after 1994.

Spoiler

Here you said the ban (that you just said would have solved everything by making things illegal to possess) didn't focus on possession

Spoiler

What is boring is constantly pointing out your distortions and ignorance.

 

The only thing I like about the GOP is they are pro 2nd, but plenty of Democrats are too. Outside of the media and the twitterazzi, gun control just isn't a burning issue.

If the GOP loses the next presidential election, and I hope they get crushed, it won't be because of gun control, gay marriage, or pot, it will be because of their unwavering allegiance to big business , banks, oil companies, and the military industrial complex.

The only social issue that hurts Republicans is abortion.

 

Can't wait to hear this one.

 

Per capita there is much more crime in my parents current small east texas (meth-infested) town than in my current urban area... but I'm sure if you just total the # of incidents, then east texas looks safer. LOL.

But I think he means a certain, oh, kind of rural America. (wink, wink)

 

I accept this.

 

Actually everything I said was correct. Notice about the gunshow I said depending on how they were done. When I mentioned not focusing on possession I was talking about the national ban and was correct.

What seems to be the problem is either you don't know the laws yourself or you are confusing the national and CT. laws.

either way it isn't my problem.

 

This is a lie.

The only mental health component that was voted upon was struck down by Democrats. Way to go!

 

So what you're saying is that without the background checks voted down with a 54-46 majority due to a fillibuster threat by Republicans that the mentally crazy can't buy weapons? Oh wait, but they can because anybody from Jeffrey Dahmer to Lee Harvey Oswald can still buy a gun without a problem thanks to conservative ****nuts in the Senate. Then as an end around, nut job Ted Cruz tried to change the focus from background checks for everyone to simply focusing on mental health but at the same time trying to hamstring states with strict gun laws by expanding the rights of gun owners in states with those strict laws? You see bob, that's what we call a bait and switch. So yeah, you're the lie here or maybe you're just not real sharp. Way to go! Fortunately, we know how to read.