Every thing you just stated is factually false.

Bullshit.

What has CHANGED?
Come on.. tell me how things are any different for the gun loving American Patriot pre and post Sandy Hook?

Because, from where I sit, nothing has...

(and it doesn't impact me at all; I live in the UK, I have no interest in living in the USA, so you can keep on killing each other as much as you like, just means every so often I have to ignore for a few tweets and news stories because whoops! a bunch more people I don't care about have been killed.)

ps.
Your Ice Cream example was moronic.
Your flower shop example is wrong.
I see nothing wrong with the words when the words are correct - they are, after all, just words.

Edit:
Also you attacked the wrong person.
I never called for change.
I admitted you guys had won the right to kill people.... keep weapons sorry...
If you want to get all defensive over the point I decided you had won, well, that's your fucking problem not mine :)

Well, we have a major candidate pushing to reinstate the assault weapons ban, and ban the private sale of guns (it's NOT a "gun show loophole". It's not a loophole at all...)

*Edit* Also, now's the time to think about how to benefit from the election.

If Clinton's ahead in mid October, I'm going to be ordering 30~ 80% milled lower receivers. Their price usually spikes around major shootings, so when one occurs while Clinton's president I can sell them on gun broker for a good profit.

If Trump's ahead before the election, I'm going to close out on all my stock positions. If Trump wins, the markets will have a large correction. This will probably only be temporary, so I'm going to try and buy into the dip. Maybe buy into the index as I'm not sure which stocks will be impacted directly.

Banning assault weapons and closing the gun-sale loophole?

Sounds good to me.

L. Spiro

Every thing you just stated is factually false. Every shooting that occurs, their are riots. Every shooting that occurs, is an excuse for another HRC rally where she cries out for more gun control, or for house democrats to launch a sit in for gun control. You come off as one of those people who are a part of the problem.

I would say he is right. It is more of the stereotypical Democrats proposition to oppress free ranged weaponry in some extent- more or less.

After HC, there will still be unrestricted half-automatic rifles and piles of amunition everywhere, and pistols even for kids to just grab and carry to classes.

For making laws to address this, there would have to be an amendment reformation, and that would need too many congresmans to agree in Capitol, and since democrats and republicans are always around 1:1 pool, how can that happen? President cannot rewrite amendments themself, and cannot get accepted an amendment breaking legislative by simple half+ of their (a little) dominating congress party.

Obama has been governing with republicans dominated congress, so he did not get passed any republican deeply unfavored legislatives, such as "Obama care" and the likes.

You come off as one of those people who are a part of the problem. If someone died from a brain freeze by eating ice cream too fast, you would rally to ban ice cream shops. You sound like one of the people who rallied to ban Christian owned flower shops because one of them refused to serve a gay couple, but every Muslim owned bakery does the exact same thing and cries of outrage are no where to be heard. You are the type of person who results to name calling and screaming profanities.

Or to paraphrase, "I'm putting you in a box with a label on it (printed by fox news) so I don't actually need to engage in intelligent debate or even attempt to try to understand your position".

(and it doesn't impact me at all; I live in the UK, I have no interest in living in the USA, so you can keep on killing each other as much as you like, just means every so often I have to ignore for a few tweets and news stories because whoops! a bunch more people I don't care about have been killed.)

CIA world factbook. UK ranked higher(60th) in death rate overall than US(93rd) as of 2015. Oh yeah not to mention other "gun free safe zones" such as Canada(81st), Spain(68th), France(65th), Sweden(59th), Japan(54th). So on and so forth...

People who cry bloody murder and claim guns are the problem don't know the facts. Hey, heres more fun facts, all of the highest gun control areas in the united states, which just so happen to have democratic local officials running them as well, have the highest gun crime! Strange how that works.

Your flower shop example is wrong.

No its not. Have you even looked into it?

Banning assault weapons and closing the gun-sale loop-hole? Sounds good to me.

Criminals will find their way to gun shots always. It literally would only- prevent accidents and make police less hostile and more calm.

But it would make terror/criminal tragedies more impacting - at the very least.

Also homicides would be much harder to get resolved since a lot of murderers buy legal weapons in legal shops that are very trained to cooperate with investigators and police.

What'd be not the case of a flourishing black gun market.

You come off as one of those people who are a part of the problem. If someone died from a brain freeze by eating ice cream too fast, you would rally to ban ice cream shops. You sound like one of the people who rallied to ban Christian owned flower shops because one of them refused to serve a gay couple, but every Muslim owned bakery does the exact same thing and cries of outrage are no where to be heard. You are the type of person who results to name calling and screaming profanities.

Or to paraphrase, "I'm putting you in a box with a label on it (printed by fox news) so I don't actually need to engage in intelligent debate or even attempt to try to understand your position".

If someone offers a shallow argument, they get a shallow response. Also fox news has nothing to do with this. According to your logic, you just labeled me.

I am all for intelligent debate, but he did not offer one with his statements. Also, have you ever watched fox news except for edited clips on youtube? Don't tell me you listen to CNN or MSNBC like they are any better. if you haven't noticed, Fox news is the only network that criticizes both democrats and republicans, unlike the others that blindly follow the democratic creed of "unity".

Banning assault weapons and closing the gun-sale loop-hole? Sounds good to me.

Criminals will find their way to gun shots always. It literally would only- prevent accidents and make police less hostile and more calm.
But it would make terror/criminal tragedies more impacting - at the very least.
Also homicides would be much harder to get resolved since a lot of murderers buy legal weapons in legal shops that are very trained to cooperate with investigators and police.
What'd be not the case of a flourishing black gun market.

Are those your conclusions after witnessing Australia enact an all-out ban on guns (which isn’t even what is being proposed)?
I’m guessing you did not conduct this study: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds

Not only do you not have a point regarding gun violence, you add on top of that the fact that police would stop killing everything in sight and there would be fewer accidents.

The only thing stopping change is people with defeatist attitudes such as your own.
“The solution wouldn’t be perfect, so let’s just keep the terrible system we have.”

Give me a break.


L. Spiro

CIA world factbook. UK ranked higher(60th) in death rate overall than US(93rd) as of 2015. Oh yeah not to mention other "gun free safe zones" such as Canada(81st), Spain(68th), France(65th), Sweden(59th), Japan(54th). So on and so forth...

you would get more credibility if you site the source of that info (btw don't tell me to search myself). Maybe the wordings of the stats would also be very important too because its literally impossible for the gun crimes and gun related deaths rate in the UK to be higher than in the US, we just don't that many guns in the streets to achieve that!

And even if I read it black and white - I'm more likely to believe they plucked the stats out of the thin air for propaganda purposes more than anything else

There just isn't that culture (or the need to warrant the situation) where a section of the population feel they have the right to need and own guns for protection. Protect from what? Yes guns still do exist on the streets of the UK but of the few that exist nearly 100% these are owned illegally. The logic doesn't just stack up. The fact that people are not crying out to own guns here in the UK speaks for itself. How many "Columbines" have we had? I can only recollect one in Dunblane, Scotland nearly 20 years ago

Even the police don't carry guns around except for special circumstances, special raids... et cetera ....