how many slaughters will it take?

[Ockham]

Harming people is not the same, simply isn't. Only in pea brains does this analogy work.

Wait, you're the person who happily dreams about the political right being terminated (ie., harmed). Irony alert.

 

[countryboy]

The whifffff is what you just said.
2A supporters who refuse to face reality are joined at the hip with radical NRA leadership .

You really don't make any sense. I have nothing to do with the NRA, nor do the vast majority of 2A supporters. How exactly does that make us "joined at the hip"?

 

[Summerwind]

Wait, you're the person who happily dreams about the political right being terminated (ie., harmed). Irony alert.

That was in reference to people claiming they'd start a civil war, not about having property taken away. Starting a civil war is the same as harming people, right?

 

[Lutherf]

Harming people is not the same, simply isn't. Only in pea brains does this analogy work.

If the government attempted to commit an atrocity against the people or a segment of the population then who are you going to turn to for protection? That's the salient point.

I get a kick out of you folks.

Half of you are convinced that the cops hate black people and actively seek to incarcerate, abuse and murder them. You're so convinced of this that you support (or "understand") riots, looting and violent acts committed against the police. Yet, when the issue of protecting the rights of gun owners comes up you are perfectly willing to cast aside the "fact" that cops are malicious and foresee them as the force that will liberate you from the "danger" of guns. That's one heck of a delusion you've got going there!

 

[sawdust]

Jeanne Assam is Still Waiting | 5280

Five years ago this month Jeanne Assam shot a gunman at New Life Church in Colorado Springs and saved countless lives. She was called a national hero and lauded by President George W. Bush. It looked as if her life would change forever. But before Assam could move forward, she first had to confront herself.

What we need is more concealed carry, not less.

 

[Summerwind]

If the government attempted to commit an atrocity against the people or a segment of the population then who are you going to turn to for protection? That's the salient point.

I get a kick out of you folks.

Half of you are convinced that the cops hate black people and actively seek to incarcerate, abuse and murder them. You're so convinced of this that you support (or "understand") riots, looting and violent acts committed against the police. Yet, when the issue of protecting the rights of gun owners comes up you are perfectly willing to cast aside the "fact" that cops are malicious and foresee them as the force that will liberate you from the "danger" of guns. That's one heck of a delusion you've got going there!

Uhm, I'm a CCW carrier, so I have no idea where you're getting your broad brush to stroke me with. I've even carried illegally in CA back in the day when our family vacation to Disneyland happened to occur (was scheduled way in advance) three weeks after the Rodney King riots. So really you need to point that outrage somewhere else.

That said, harming people is not the same as taking property. And the reason I carry is to protect myself against people like you, seriously. Most intimidation and/or threats I've received in my life came from your ilk.

 

[Summerwind]

Jeanne Assam is Still Waiting | 5280



What we need is more concealed carry, not less.

Yes, to this I can agree because even reddest of red Idaho, a CCW has to go through training which includes competency and legality, as well as an FBi background check. This is how people should be carrying, I agree.

 

[Thrilla]

I'm a heartless liberal, what can I say? I don't have my views because I "care," I have my views because it's been proven, and/or in the process of being proven that liberal policies cost less in the long run, kill fewer people, and create fewer enemies.

well, hopefully you keep you putrid "happy dreams" in your head and don't put them into action.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You misunderstand the purpose of the poll. This is NOT a debate about if gun laws will be effective. This simply is asking you if month after month after month of double digit slaughters would produce a change in the public demand action so that it can counter the political clout of the gun lobby.

It is NOT to discuss if gun laws may or may not work. Only to see if the door would open to the possibility -since it is now closed shut and tight.

The two topics are inseparable, no ones going to lobby for a law that person knows or believes won't do anything

 

[iguanaman]

I can't believe you are trying to imply that Americans believe in our Second Amendment rights simply because the NRA told us to. Do you really believe that? If so, you are gullible as all get out.

The right to own a gun is not unrestricted and 90% believe it should be more restricted by background checks so no. I am talking about our legislators who have been bought out by the NRA and are financed by the gun companies who just want to make a buck no matter what the consequences. How would comprehensive background checks effect your right to own a gun by the way? You couldn't pass them?

 

[Lutherf]

Uhm, I'm a CCW carrier, so I have no idea where you're getting your broad brush to stroke me with. I've even carried illegally in CA back in the day when our family vacation to Disneyland happened to occur (was scheduled way in advance) three weeks after the Rodney King riots. So really you need to point that outrage somewhere else.

That said, harming people is not the same as taking property. And the reason I carry is to protect myself against people like you, seriously. Most intimidation and/or threats I've received in my life came from your ilk.

Protection from people like me, huh? Well, that's probably a little misguided but who am I to judge? Especially when I've got you to make those judgements for me.

 

[Summerwind]

Protection from people like me, huh? Well, that's probably a little misguided but who am I to judge? Especially when I've got you to make those judgements for me.

Are you a conservative white male? Then you are of the "ilk" that has been the only one to ever attempt to intimidate or threaten me. No other group has, and many of your group have attempted such.

 

[Thrilla]

Are you a conservative white male? Then you are of the "ilk" that has been the only one to ever attempt to intimidate or threaten me. No other group has, and many of your group have attempted such.

:lamo

 

[Thrilla]

The right to own a gun is not unrestricted and 90% believe it should be more restricted by background checks so no. I am talking about our legislators who have been bought out by the NRA and are financed by the gun companies who just want to make a buck no matter what the consequences. How would comprehensive background checks effect your right to own a gun by the way? You couldn't pass them?

we already have background checks.... do you think they aren't working as advertised?

 

[B'smith]

When Sandy Hook happened, I said that there would be no laws passed since the gun lobby was strong in Washington that I felt it would take events like this - double digit mass slaying of innocents - for between one and two years before the public outcry became so strong that it could overcome the gun lobby and get action.

When the Colorado Batman killings happened I said that there would be no laws passed since the gun lobby was strong in Washington that I felt it would take events like this - double digit mass slaying of innocents - for between one and two years before the public outcry became so strong that it could overcome the gun lobby and get action.

I said the same thing for a bunch of other slaughter events as well.

And now with Charleston I say the same thing again.

But perhaps I am wrong. In fact - I think I am and no amount would matter to effect any change.

So you step in and give your opinion.

Let us say that each month for a period of time from now on, we have events like Sandy Hook and Colorado and Charleston with high death counts of innocent people.

How long would it take to then produce a public outcry demand federal action on firearms?

__________________

I think that you're assuming:

1. That very many people think additional, duplicate laws will work while existing ones are ignored

2. That the actual number of deaths caused by firearms published by major media are accurate

3. That banning any inanimate object will solve any problem

Consider that if were illegal to drive faster than 5 mph, thousands of lives would be saved but imagine the mess.

 

[tech30528]

Ther was plenty of outcry and plenty of demanding but there is just no amount of majority that can defeat the NRA juggernaut. It does not matter how large a majority want background checks or Federal gun registration we have a mostly dysfunctional Govt. that is tied in knots by money.

90 percent of Americans want expanded background checks on guns. Why isn’t this a political slam dunk? - The Washington Post

It's not the NRA that prevents these laws, it is the will of the people. Many speak thru the NRA, but a whole lot more do not. The ability of a government to stay in control is partially hinged on the willingness of the people to obey it. Write too stringent a law and it will be widely ignored. Interesting that a government that would outlaw guns would enforce that law with.... guns.

 

[Grant]

Wait, you're the person who happily dreams about the political right being terminated (ie., harmed). Irony alert.

Another Dylann Roof clone, happily dreaming of killing innocent people. It's seems just too easy to get some people to hate.

 

[chromium]

It's because half of the public's reaction to tragedies like this is unfailingly "If only everyone in the audience in that darkened theater had a gun, the killer would've been stopped!" "If only everyone at church had a gun" "If only the teacher at the elementary school had a gun" etc

Yes and the wild west was so peaceful

 

[DarkWizard12]

When Sandy Hook happened, I said that there would be no laws passed since the gun lobby was strong in Washington that I felt it would take events like this - double digit mass slaying of innocents - for between one and two years before the public outcry became so strong that it could overcome the gun lobby and get action. When the Colorado Batman killings happened I said that there would be no laws passed since the gun lobby was strong in Washington that I felt it would take events like this - double digit mass slaying of innocents - for between one and two years before the public outcry became so strong that it could overcome the gun lobby and get action. I said the same thing for a bunch of other slaughter events as well. And now with Charleston I say the same thing again. But perhaps I am wrong. In fact - I think I am and no amount would matter to effect any change. So you step in and give your opinion. Let us say that each month for a period of time from now on, we have events like Sandy Hook and Colorado and Charleston with high death counts of innocent people. How long would it take to then produce a public outcry demand federal action on firearms?

See, you're assuming that people don't look at this, and think "Wow, if only everyone was armed so that we could protect ourselves", regardless of what the "liberal educated elite" might say, any massacres like this is only going to back fire and convince people for more access to weapons.

 

[Lutherf]

See, you're assuming that people don't look at this, and think "Wow, if only everyone was armed so that we could protect ourselves", regardless of what the "liberal educated elite" might say, any massacres like this is only going to back fire and convince people for more access to weapons.

It certainly does make a bold statement for why carrying for defensive purposes is a good idea.

 

[Phys251]

Out of curiosity, if the Republicans win the White House in 2016 and President Palin decides to sign an executive order outlawing homosexuality and ordering the troops to round up any gays and throw them in jail would you be willing to fight to preserve the liberty of homosexuals? What if President Trump decides that racial minorities are a threat to society and orders that all people of color get rounded up and sent to the Rachel Dolezal race reassignment surgical center? Would those threats to fundamental freedoms be enough to get your ass away from the keyboard and into some fatigues?

You are so full of lies that you can't even see straight, Luther. Since when is it an endemic problem for the Left to be advocating widespread violence in response to perceived systematic disenfranchisement? Not since the 1970s, and even that's debatable. Why do conservatives have this problem? Why do they have so many people in their camp that seem to think that mass violence is the answer when they won't get their way? And furthermore, why do conservatives, in response, not have enough center-right people in their fold that are willing to stuff your extremism where the sun don't shine? Because you've kicked them to the curb, that's why. The number of sane Republicans grows fewer and fewer with every election cycle. Your political party is now infested with and enabled by people whose collective judgment is severely impaired by anything and anyone that does not conform to their continually narrowing ideology.

I'm going to say it to you (plural) again: Put up or shut up. Either start your damn revolution already or GTFO.

 

[Lutherf]

Are you a conservative white male? Then you are of the "ilk" that has been the only one to ever attempt to intimidate or threaten me. No other group has, and many of your group have attempted such.

Well, since it appears that simply disagreeing with you is enough to intimidate you I can see why you live in fear of my "ilk".

 

[Summerwind]

Well, since it appears that simply disagreeing with you is enough to intimidate you I can see why you live in fear of my "ilk".

Really, you think you or anyone on this site intimidates me? You don't pay much attention then, do you?

Attempted intimidation there's plenty of, successful intimidation score is currently at zer0.

 

[Lutherf]

You are so full of lies that you can't even see straight, Luther. Since when is it an endemic problem for the Left to be advocating widespread violence in response to perceived systematic disenfranchisement? Not since the 1970s, and even that's debatable. Why do conservatives have this problem? Why do they have so many people in their camp that seem to think that mass violence is the answer when they won't get their way? And furthermore, why do conservatives, in response, not have enough center-right people in their fold that are willing to stuff your extremism where the sun don't shine? Because you've kicked them to the curb, that's why. The number of sane Republicans grows fewer and fewer with every election cycle. Your political party is now infested with and enabled by people whose collective judgment is severely impaired by anything and anyone that does not conform to their continually narrowing ideology.

I'm going to say it to you (plural) again: Put up or shut up. Either start your damn revolution already or GTFO.

When is the last time you saw Conservatives riot, loot and vandalize when they didn't get their way?

The Republican party is infested with weak liberals. There aren't anywhere near enough Conservatives.

 

[Goshin]

You misunderstand the purpose of the poll. This is NOT a debate about if gun laws will be effective. This simply is asking you if month after month after month of double digit slaughters would produce a change in the public demand action so that it can counter the political clout of the gun lobby.

It is NOT to discuss if gun laws may or may not work. Only to see if the door would open to the possibility -since it is now closed shut and tight.

Why should any number of mass murders convince me to support gun control when I don't believe gun control is the answer or would be effective?


Any more than "gun free" zones.... which are just happy hunting grounds for mass murderers.