[W:606]Do you support Rep. Eric Salwell's gun control idea?

[SixStringHero]

He is taking a brave approach...Standing up to the NRA and the angry white men that worship guns....Way to go Eric

The more you know.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/623356/gun-ownership-in-the-us-by-ethnicity/

It's not just whites who own guns.

 

[eohrnberger]

We aren't nutjob Leftists, though.

Had to think if something to get past rge character minimum.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Divine_Wind]

The more you know.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/623356/gun-ownership-in-the-us-by-ethnicity/

It's not just whites who own guns.

Agreed.

Here's more stats: The demographics of gun ownership in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

https://qz.com/1215905/gun-ownership-in-the-us-by-race-and-gender/

 

[haymarket]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Wet birds don't fly at night.

 

[haymarket]

You did when you said "There are simply weapons that no citizen has any business owning in a supposedly civilized society which has proven to have a real problem with such weapons and too many innocent people pay the ultimate price for other peoples toys."

What sense does it make to ban "assault weapons" which cause less than 2% of murders but not handguns which cause 46% of murders, plus 51% of suicides, about 22,000/year?

Have you thought this through?

I never said what you think I said.

 

[haymarket]

How does that make sense when handguns are used in the vast majority of murders? Are you more interested in symbolic nonsense or actual gun death reductions?

That is up to the peoples government working within the limits of the Constitution.

 

[Mach]

Problem is the ones doing most of the killing don't give crap about laws, no matter how strict or comprehensive they are.

I know you're just repeating what you've heard, but I have to tell you that's an outrageously stupid argument they make.

That's basically saying: criminals don't obey the law, therefore laws are pointless.
And yet we know that's absurd, and all modern civilized societies rest on a pillar of the idea of laws and enforcement and a justice system that shape and constrain societal behavior. Why do I even need to type that? Seems too obvious.

We also have examples of nations that have few guns, and correspondingly few gun crimes, so we have both reasoning that backs it, and real life examples. This is not some big mystery.

The only reason we have pervasive guns in the U.S.:
2nd amendment
the gun lobby has been effective at convincing people to support them and broaden the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and fight any/all gun control.

It's now a gun culture, backed by constitutional interpretation, and a powerful gun lobby. We have Trump in office though, so the idea we'll see half the nation get wise to all this and make some good choices, I'm not holding my breath any time soon. Gonna be along time if ever.

 

[pinqy]

that is a matter of the duly elected representatives of the American people to decide within the boundaries of the US Constitution.

So, you can’t say what assault weapons are, but you can say they’re dangerous and civilians have no business using them. This makes sense to you?

 

[Bullseye]

I know you're just repeating what you've heard, but I have to tell you that's an outrageously stupid argument they make.

That's basically saying: criminals don't obey the law, therefore laws are pointless.

Your idiotic condescension aside, that's not what it's saying at all. We're talking about forcee buy backs what makes you think criminals and gang members are going to sell back their guns?

And yet we know that's absurd, and all modern civilized societies rest on a pillar of the idea of laws and enforcement and a justice system that shape and constrain societal behavior. Why do I even need to type that? Seems too obvious.

You don't have to type anything, your pompous self-importance seems to be forcing you.

We also have examples of nations that have few guns, and correspondingly few gun crimes, so we have both reasoning that backs it, and real life examples. This is not some big mystery.

Red Herring. "but mommy all the other kids are doing it" argument.

The only reason we have pervasive guns in the U.S.:
2nd amendment
the gun lobby has been effective at convincing people to support them and broaden the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and fight any/all gun control.

Sorry, not even close to true. The "gun lobby", what ever that is, has not argued for abolishing all gun laws. I guess you're just repeating what you've heard.

It's now a gun culture, backed by constitutional interpretation, and a powerful gun lobby. We have Trump in office though, so the idea we'll see half the nation get wise to all this and make some good choices, I'm not holding my breath any time soon. Gonna be along time if ever.

Keep reading and regurgitating. You do it well, and I find it amusing.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, that's how you start a civil war. His smug comment about using "nukes" didn't exactly take the guano out of "bat-guano."

assholes like that congress turd is why the second amendment is so important. He also has no clue about the posse commitatus act either. (18 USC sec. 1385)

 

[TurtleDude]

The main problem, of course, is that “military style assault weapon” doesn’t really mean anything. Hell, Washington State just defines all semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons.”

California-in their gun bangasm to ban "assault weapons" banned this weapon-which is one of the reasons why the Olympic shooting team trials had to move from Ontario California (where the 84 games held the shooting events) to Georgia

This pistol is used in the Olympic pistol match. It costs a couple thousand dollars but because it is semi auto, uses a detachable magazine that is located FORWARD of the grip-it was deemed an assault weapon by the morons who wrote the california gun ban



Bottom line-any, I repeat ANY firearm that a state or federal governmental unit issues to CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT officers for USE in a CIVILIAN domestic environment cannot be said to be TOO Dangerous for honest citizens to legally possess in their own homes.

 

[TurtleDude]

No. If they’re fit for civilian police use their fit for civilian use period.

that is such a sensible bright line rule.

 

[TurtleDude]

He is taking a brave approach...Standing up to the NRA and the angry white men that worship guns....Way to go Eric

your attitude proves what really motivates gun banners
its not armed criminals that bother you-its a conservative voting bloc that is perceived to mainly be made up of a race you hate.

 

[TurtleDude]

No, if police are trained to use them in certain situations, every citizen, including mentally ill, should have them, ideally IN schools to protect the kids!!!
Am I doing this rite??? Obama sure was wrong, they don't cling to the gunzzzz!

that's really silly

how can a government issue defensive weapons (cops cannot go around shooting people like the military can in warfare) to civilian employees and then turn around and say there is no legitimate reason for other civilians to EVEN OWN said weapons.

 

[TurtleDude]

Guns are not drugs, and don't serve the same purpose as drugs.
So no, nothing like drugs.

Unless you do a lot of drugs, then it's just like drugs.

drugs need to be replenished every time you use them. A military issue pistol my grandfather carried in France 100 years ago still works really well today

 

[mike2810]

I voted no. What the Congressman doesn't say is how he would pay for the 15 Billion dollars the buy back would cost.

 

[TurtleDude]

I know you're just repeating what you've heard, but I have to tell you that's an outrageously stupid argument they make.

That's basically saying: criminals don't obey the law, therefore laws are pointless.
And yet we know that's absurd, and all modern civilized societies rest on a pillar of the idea of laws and enforcement and a justice system that shape and constrain societal behavior. Why do I even need to type that? Seems too obvious.

We also have examples of nations that have few guns, and correspondingly few gun crimes, so we have both reasoning that backs it, and real life examples. This is not some big mystery.

The only reason we have pervasive guns in the U.S.:
2nd amendment
the gun lobby has been effective at convincing people to support them and broaden the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and fight any/all gun control.

It's now a gun culture, backed by constitutional interpretation, and a powerful gun lobby. We have Trump in office though, so the idea we'll see half the nation get wise to all this and make some good choices, I'm not holding my breath any time soon. Gonna be along time if ever.

here is the deal-almost all the gun laws people like you want-criminalize currently legal behavior -behavior that hurts NO ONE rather than increasing the penalties on those who engage in clearly and objectively harmful activity such as murder with guns, robber with guns, assault with guns or forcible rape facilitated by a rapist using a firearm. That is because the real goal of the anti gun left is not to punish criminals who use guns and already violate 18 USC 922 by being felons in possession of firearms (on top of shooting or threatening innocent citizens) but to harass as restrict law abiding gun owners.

 

[Hawkeye10]

here is the deal-almost all the gun laws people like you want-criminalize currently legal behavior -behavior that hurts NO ONE rather than increasing the penalties on those who engage in clearly and objectively harmful activity such as murder with guns, robber with guns, assault with guns or forcible rape facilitated by a rapist using a firearm. That is because the real goal of the anti gun left is not to punish criminals who use guns and already violate 18 USC 922 by being felons in possession of firearms (on top of shooting or threatening innocent citizens) but to harass as restrict law abiding gun owners.

"They Really SUCK!.....Hit Em HARDER!!!"

You see that clearly in that law that Washington State just passed that the NRA is challenging in the courts.

You were right all along.

 

[Divine_Wind]

I never said what you think I said.

First, there's plenty who have said such things and, second, perhaps you should write more clearly on which guns you want to ban and why.

 

[Kal'Stang]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...qeH_m_noBne0VujYf-5YvpvT-NvFQyp3plczT3GNUFfUk

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.
In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”




Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”

Hellz to the no.

 

[Media_Truth]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...qeH_m_noBne0VujYf-5YvpvT-NvFQyp3plczT3GNUFfUk

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.
In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”




Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”

If I was this guy, I would fear for my life. We need look no further than all the recent mass shootings, to ascertain that there are gun nuts all over the US, who would like nothing better than to put this guy down.

 

[Lutherf]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...qeH_m_noBne0VujYf-5YvpvT-NvFQyp3plczT3GNUFfUk

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.
In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”




Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”

As you are certainly aware, he also proposed nuking those who choose not to comply. He's an idiot. Scratch that, he's a dangerous idiot.

 

[Media_Truth]

As you are certainly aware, he also proposed nuking those who choose not to comply. He's an idiot. Scratch that, he's a dangerous idiot.

Finally a politician who has the guts to stand up for what is right and just. Finally a proposal that would actually accomplish something. It worked in Australia. It can work here.

 

[TurtleDude]

If I was this guy, I would fear for my life. We need look no further than all the recent mass shootings, to ascertain that there are gun nuts all over the US, who would like nothing better than to put this guy down.

you whine about unnamed "gun nuts" yet you seem OK with a politician who talks about using nuclear weapons on US soil against US citizens. That's a pretty pathetic testament to your level of hate towards lawful gun owners.

 

[TurtleDude]

Finally a politician who has the guts to stand up for what is right and just. Finally a proposal that would actually accomplish something. It worked in Australia. It can work here.

uh its unconstitutional. a big difference with Australia.