Quote:We Need Gun Control at Every Level

The vast majority of Americans do not need a firearm, and yet they own them anyway, and continue to use them to kill. This is an epidemic that stems from a single source—the enormous, poorly regulated market for arms, propped up by an obscenely rich political lobby holding half of America’s electoral politics hostage.


This is the starting point; the argument over whether or not we need more or less gun control is, to me, as useless as debating whether or not fossil fuels are poisoning the air. Nearly all credible research shows that we need fewer gunsand better accountability and regulations for the ones we keep; the only thing left for us to do is haggle over the details.

Those details are tricky, not in the least because a large portion of the country does not accept the overwhelming evidence that guns do, in fact, kill people—. The question then becomes one of delegation: Who will make the laws that take the guns? Will it be the federal government, the states, or local municipalities?

...

...we need at least a three-tiered system of gun control: strict federal laws requiring universal background checks; closing gun show loopholes; and far harsher penalties on businesses and gunmakers found negligent in their sales. We need sweeping federal changes and changes at the state and local level to even stand a chance at stemming the tide of gun violence. Because each state and each city and town is different, and therein lies the problem.

...

There is no one catch-all fix to this issue. It is going to be messy, especially considering that in some instances, the NRA is even more powerful at the state level than it is in D.C. But like healthcare, the needs of individual communities and the people governing them will be different—no one set of rules is going to end the violence tearing the country apart.  are a powerful statement, but can only go so far. Gun control starts in the home and ends in the White House, not one nor the other or anywhere in between. All of them at once, and now.

https://splinternews.com/we-need-gun-con...1834729369

The fact that the gun culture hasn't already risen against the Tyrant T.rump proves they're disingenuous.

(May 15, 2019 at 7:30 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: The fact that the gun culture hasn't already risen against the Tyrant T.rump proves they're disingenuous.

Hell they didn't even rise up against the guy they kept calling a tyrant

(May 15, 2019 at 7:37 am)Amarok Wrote:

(May 15, 2019 at 7:30 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: The fact that the gun culture hasn't already risen against the Tyrant T.rump proves they're disingenuous.

Hell they didn't even rise up against the guy they kept calling a tyrant

Probably couldn't procure enough beer for a prolonged campaign. Remember, "amateurs talk tactics, professional talk logistics."

The founding fathers made it a right to bear arms that shall not be infringed to prevent tyrannical governments from taking power primarily. Also, guns are to protect against potential invaders. They also serve to deter and defend against thugs and criminals that would get guns regardless of the laws. If the totalitarians in this country ever really went for the guns, I expect there might be a war in this country.

There are active duty and former military, law enforcement, and firefighters that belong to the Oath Keepers. They will not disarm their fellow citizens and I believe they will defend against it. Anyone can join but it is mainly targeted at military, law enforcement, and fire fighters. There are many organizations like this. I do not support what they do sometimes but often what they are saying is true for the most part. I am not sure about their "security missions" they run and some other things but what they say appears correct to me.

(May 15, 2019 at 8:37 am)CDF47 Wrote: The founding fathers made it a right to bear arms that shall not be infringed to prevent tyrannical governments from taking power primarily.  Also, guns are to protect against potential invaders.  They also serve to deter and defend against thugs and criminals that would get guns regardless of the laws.  If the totalitarians in this country ever really went for the guns, I expect there might be a war in this country.  

There are active duty and former military, law enforcement, and firefighters that belong to the Oath Keepers.  They will not disarm their fellow citizens and I believe they will defend against it.  Anyone can join but it is mainly targeted at military, law enforcement, and fire fighters.  There are many organizations like this.  I do not support what they do sometimes but often what they are saying is true for the most part.  I am not sure about their "security missions" they run and some other things but what they say appears correct to me.

And the drunks with guns will get a drone strike up their ass PDQ.

(May 15, 2019 at 8:44 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(May 15, 2019 at 8:37 am)CDF47 Wrote: The founding fathers made it a right to bear arms that shall not be infringed to prevent tyrannical governments from taking power primarily.  Also, guns are to protect against potential invaders.  They also serve to deter and defend against thugs and criminals that would get guns regardless of the laws.  If the totalitarians in this country ever really went for the guns, I expect there might be a war in this country.  

There are active duty and former military, law enforcement, and firefighters that belong to the Oath Keepers.  They will not disarm their fellow citizens and I believe they will defend against it.  Anyone can join but it is mainly targeted at military, law enforcement, and fire fighters.  There are many organizations like this.  I do not support what they do sometimes but often what they are saying is true for the most part.  I am not sure about their "security missions" they run and some other things but what they say appears correct to me.

And the drunks with guns will get a drone strike up their ass PDQ.

Yeah, that is the type of government you want.  One that would drone strike it's own people domestically.  Wow, this country is in a sad state of affairs with many people buying into this logic.

(May 15, 2019 at 8:50 am)CDF47 Wrote: Yeah, that is the type of government you want.  One that would drone strike it's own people domestically.  Wow, this country is in a sad state of affairs with many people buying into this logic.

He meant that the puny arsenal of the people cannot stand up against the might of the government's weaponry. The we need guns to stand up to a tyrannical government is simply a whimsical conspiracy gun fondlers share with one another to justify their ownership of unneeded guns.

(May 15, 2019 at 8:50 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 15, 2019 at 8:44 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: And the drunks with guns will get a drone strike up their ass PDQ.

Yeah, that is the type of government you want.  One that would drone strike it's own people domestically.  Wow, this country is in a sad state of affairs with many people buying into this logic.

I swore an oath to defend the Constitution from an enemies, foreign or domestic. The drunks with guns would count. Insurrectionists would get bombed, why do you have a problem with that?

(May 15, 2019 at 8:54 am)Fierce Wrote:

(May 15, 2019 at 8:50 am)CDF47 Wrote: Yeah, that is the type of government you want.  One that would drone strike it's own people domestically.  Wow, this country is in a sad state of affairs with many people buying into this logic.

He meant that the puny arsenal of the people cannot stand up against the might of the government's weaponry. The we need guns to stand up to a tyrannical government is simply a whimsical conspiracy gun fondlers share with one another to justify their ownership of unneeded guns.

Wrong again.  It would be mostly an urban guerrilla war like in Iraq.  It would never end until a side submitted.  This topic is dangerous.  There are people with guns on both sides that are standing their ground firmly.

By the way.  There is no puny arsenal of people.  There are more guns in the US than people actually according to the stats I read.