Not a member of the NRA.

There is only one logical conclusion to all of this, gun confiscation. You cannot stop mass shootings with an AR-15 ban. You cannot stop mass shootings with a bump stock ban. You cant stop mass shootings with an increased registration process. You cant stop mass shootings with a 21 yr old requirement. The only way you stop mass shootings is by taking the guns. No guns = no shootings.

As long as there's been guns in America there has been mass shootings. As long as guns continue to be in America there will always be mass shootings. From 1764 until March 20, 2018....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

Does shooting it out in the streets of Mogadishu with a bunch of Muslims count towards anything?

Sales bounced through the roof over the weekend. Isn't that funny?

LOL - This is the ultimate irony.

The NRA and the gun nuts all support Republicans. They do this with scare tatics - If a Democrat wins they will take our guns away. Sales go through the roof. But when a Republican wins sales tank.

It wasn't anything to do with theis shooting.. They are trying to dodge a lawsuit from their bushmaster brand (aka assault rifles) and are trying restructure the company

So you are willing to accept the numbers killed in the mass shootings, just to keep your guns.

Limiting the power and magazine capacity lowers the number killed.

You want to get Republicans out to vote? Keep politicizing kids saying they want to take guns away.

Good for the kids, but the media pushing this hard core is going to hurt the dems in midterms.

I am. I am also willing to accept the 1.2 million deaths of men and women who gave their lives to protect the Constitution. I am also willing to accept the number of people that are killed by the police every year (more are killed by the police than by mass shootings) to keep the police on the streets. I am willing to accept that people can still purchase and rent cars despite the number of people killed in car accidents. I am willing to accept the fact that you can purchase a pressure cooker at a Bed Bath and Beyond despite two terrorists using them to kill and maim. Or that you can still buy fertilizer despite it being used in two terrorists attacks on US soil.

I choose to live in a free society which has inherent dangers. Anytime anyone that is innocent is killed, whether it is in a mass shooting, a car accident, an abuse of police powers or a terrorist attack it is tragic and unfortunate, but it is the price of being free.

Does that mean that nothing should be done to try to make tragic deaths less likely? Of course not, but the regulation or law should be carefully calculated not to impinge upon rights or privileges of citizens while lowering the number of injuries/deaths. A good example of this is seat belt and air bag regulation on automobile manufacturers.

By the way, lowering the magazine capacity will not stop mass shootings. I dont think it will even lower the kill number.

Perhaps a regulation requiring bio-metric security features on all new guns might help. If my phone can only be unlocked with my fingerprint why cant my gun (if I owned one) also only be unlocked by me ?

While I havent done any research on it, I would guess that making guns inoperable by anyone other than its owner will reduce the number of accidental shootings. More children die in accidental shootings than school shootings every year. It will make stolen guns relatively useless, perhaps reducing the number of murders on the streets by the "bad guys" but with 300 million guns in the US, it will take generations until "smart guns" replace traditional guns and even then, you will still have old revolvers being used to kill.

There really is no answer to gun injuries/deaths other than confiscation. And then you will only be taking the guns from those willing to hand them over. The "bad guys" wont be lining up at the local police station to hand in their guns.

Now it's come to this... Calls to repeal the Second Amendment... It was only a matter of time.

Older generations grew up in a period where getting police to respond could take hours, and when they did they they couldn't be trusted. Today's generation grew up in the suburbs where police response time is less than a minute, and we now trust the police. Today's generation no longer sees the needs for firearms.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ent/461672002/

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" are they not understanding?

The Democrats are so dumb to think no one knows they are behind all this. Nothing about this is grass roots. Soros should have his assets seized.

:rasta

Do you accept a speed limit of 65 miles an hour?

It's a stupid position for a lawyer to occupy when his job is to uphold the law.

Reducing the power of guns, bullets, the number of bullets in a magazine, the number of firearms a person can own and very thorough background checks will reduce the number of mass shootings. Protecting schools just moves the killings to more in malls, hotels, clubs, outside schools, workplaces and any areas people gather.

The bad guys aren't part of this debate. So why bring them up? We are talking about crazy people picking up a gun or guns and going on a suicide by cop mission.

I have more freedom here in Czech than you do in America.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Clueless as usual.

Yes, because millennials in the last round really voted for change, right? The war mongering Washington hag who wanted to continue the destructive agenda of the past 30 years. Lol. You really live in another dimension.

'Millennial' (the ones who are around 20 years old) is a synonym for 'no life experience'. They're extremely naive and follow suit with whatever the media tells them. Hence their massive vote for Clinton, a calculative lying career politician and war criminal who has been neck deep for decades in the Washington cesspool. She is every single thing millennials really hate deep down, but popular media has their brain fully under control so they believe Clinton was the lesser of two evils. Something only an ill informed oblivious moron believes.

What kind of extra freedoms do you have in Czechoslovakia that we don't have in America Paul?

Looks like you can't even own a gun legally in Czechoslovakia... Czech parliament moves to legalise firearm ownership

Hard liquor is illegal in Czechoslovakia
Czech Republic Bans Hard Liquor

Growing pot for personal consumption is illegal in Czechoslovakia https://www.tni.org/en/article/canna...czech-republic

So guns and hard liquor are illegal, you can't grow your own pot, but you think you are more free than we are in America got it :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I have the freedom to walk the streets, sit at home, send my kids to school, etc. Without feeling, I need a gun to protect me.

Firearms and alcohol have been legal here for decades. Slivovic is a national drink. I can hear men shooting deer, pheasants or rabbits at certain times of the year. They have to have a background check and don't need an AR-15, armour piercing bullets, huge magazines and anything like what an American can walk into a gun show and buy.

Also, Czech people can vote for very different parties and change the course the country takes. Unlike Americans.

Do you want me to make you look more like a dick?

I think you have most lawyers confused with police officers and prosecutors. I dont uphold the law. And I dont enforce laws. I am paid by a client to interpret and/or argue a position in the law most favorable to him/her.

But in line with your thinking, I have taken an oath to support and protect the US Constitution. Which, based on my reading, still has a Second Amendment. And as I believe in less restrictions on the First Amendment, I also believe in less restrictions on the Second Amendment.

Is that the US Constitution as written originally or the one that has numerous amendments?

I really did expect a better argument with a lawyer.

Besides the Second Amendment, which has been changed and restriction are put on what you can legally own. What other reasons can you give for owning a gun?

You are mistaken. The Second Amendment has not been changed. The Constitution, in regards to the Second Amendment, has never been edited. To change the Constitution you would need a Constitutional Convention. Which would require the legislatures of 34 states to call for and then to change the Second Amendment, as you claim has happened, would require 38 states (3/4) to ratify such a change. That has not happened.

And to be very honest, that will never happen in regards to the Second Amendment.

You are mistaking state or city restrictions or court decisions on the Second Amendment with changing the Second Amendment.

I live in Nevada, where it is still legal to open carry. There are very few restrictions on gun ownership and/or purchases here. And it is rather easy to receive a concealed carry permit here as well. And Nevada also gives concealed carry permits to those people who move here from other states with a concealed carry permit. There are no restrictions on assault weapons and there are no restrictions on magazines. Nevada is probably one of the most free states left in America, legal prostitution, gambling, drinking, gun ownership, legal marijuana and smoking are all okay here.

The most recent significant decision in regards to the Second Amendment is 10 years old this year. In 2008, the SCOTUS decided Heller and actually struck down a law in Washington DC banning hand guns and their safe storage law. And then in 2010, SCOTUS decided McDonald, and imposed the freedoms guaranteed by the Second Amendment shall also apply to states and municipalities.

And luckily, I dont need a reason to own a gun where I live. I dont need a reason to strap one to my hip and walk around the grocery store, the gas station or my doctor's office and even in casinos on the Strip.