Yep, this mythical tyrannical government seems to only exist when a D is in the White House. Otherwise, the good citizens will happily turn on each other if told to do so by the a government of “our kind of people”.
My only disagreement is on the timeline.
I think we are going to be seeing a pretty big push here in the next few years.
I was being cautiously optimistic. I’ve been hurt before.
A hundred rounds is not a lot. I bought a little plastic tackle box thing with a 10x10 lattice in it, and each compartment is just big enough to hold a round. When I used to go to the range I’d have one of those filled up ahead of time and reload my mags from it as I shot. I’d go through 100 rounds or so each time I shot. The cases are really small too, I could easily fit one in a fanny pack (if I owned one, which I don’t). They are pretty heavy though.
When I buy ammo it’s thousands of rounds at a time. It’s more cost-efficient and as you say, that’s not a lot. You could fit a few thousand rounds in a box the size of a 12-pack soda fridge container.
Sure. Maybe David Hogg will change the world we live in. Anything is possible. Hell he got into Harvard with a 1270 SAT score so maybe he can convince 2/3rds of the congressmen, 2/3rds of senators and 2/3rds of states to repeal the 2nd amendment.
And that is first world privilege. You have no idea what tyranny is so you mistake losing an election for tyranny.
Bit different when the winner accepts help from a hostile foreign government to get elected.
Tyranny? Not yet. Treason? You bet.
Can you name 25 states that would vote to repeal the 2nd amendment? Because you will need 9 more than that.
You will need 190 congressmen, 67 senators and 34 states. I don’t think you could get 50% of congressmen, 50% of senators or 50% of states to support repealing the 2nd amendment in the next few year (how long is a few years?).
Treason? How so? I’d like to see how deep you dig this hole.
Would you be OK eating in a restaurant that posted a sign saying “hand-washing only removes 90% of germs; employees needn’t bother with it.”
Heh. That’s almost funny. No, losing an election is part of democracy, and that is not what is being talked about here. Your insult is sooo 2016, you need to get up with the times.
Of the current crop, no. Of a crop that comes into power on the heels of the baby boomers finally losing their hold on the govt and the younger generation finally gets a say in the functioning of their govt, I think things will be a bit different.
You can’t count on all the old bigots to live forever to support you, eventually they will start dying off, and while new bigots are made every day, the glut of the baby boomers losing their hold will allow this generation of kids that grew up with active shooter drills to start pushing to make sure that their kids don’t have to.
I’ve seen the response to this be “I don’t wash my hands, why should I expect the employees to.” I assume that this is the case here as well.
There are other threads for this.
I don’t like Trump either. We can have a Trump hating contest if you like but the notion that he has committed treason is silly partisan rhetoric.
And you think that when the baby boomers mostly die over the next 20 years, we will have 2/3rds of the house, 2/3rds of the senate and 2/3rds of the state legislatures ready to repeal the 2nd amendment? That seems like wishful thinking.
What does bigotry have to do with the 2nd amendment? In your mind is the 2nd amendment synonymous with bigotry? Generally speaking, gun control has greater ties with racism than gun rights. Active shooter drills is what’s going to push the Overton window from “no chance in hell” to “inevitable”? Really?
I think you are going to have to get comfortable with our constitutional rights staying about where they are right now.
Treason != Tyranny. Stop moving goalposts.
Optimistic, maybe. But the trends are there, people want better gun control,and that number is increasing steadily, and I suspect will be increasing even faster as those who were told that all we could offer to protect them in their classes was our thought and our prayers start making their voices heard at the ballot boxes.
You don’t have to be a bigot to support the second amendment, but if you are a bigot, then you are one of it’s more fervent.
No. In your mind is a connection synonymous with a synonym?
Yeah, racists want to have guns while preventing minorities from doing the same.
It’s certainly going to point it in that direction. Do you have kids in school? Do they like being told that they need to pretend to be hiding from someone that has come to kill them?
Fire and tornado drills, those are acts of “god” and are things that there are actually steps that can be taken to dramatically increase your chances of escaping injury. That’s not the same with school shooters. Make enough kids go through that, and they will grow up to resent you for not doing anything about it, and they will do it themselves so that they don’t have to put their kids through it.
ah yes, the famous gun nut “neener, neener” defense.
Not only that - IIRC, many states have statutes that depending on the circumstances, can hold people/bars etc liable of they served alcohol to someone that subsequently caused injury or death.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: We don’t need to ban guns. Every gun should be registered and licensed. Every gun should have about a 40% federal and state sales tax. You pay an annual registration fee for every gun you own, you have to sign over the registration of the gun if you sell it. You have to pass a written and practical test to get a gun, have to have your picture taken and maybe fingerprinted, the license has to be renewed every few years. If the gun ends up used in a crime by someone other than the registered owner, the registered owner can be held liable unless they’ve reported the gun missing…and if you lose a gun or otherwise don’t follow gun ownership regulations, your license can be suspended or revoked.
The govt can start buying back guns for people that don’t want to pay the annual registration fee. Gun owners will be required to take out gun owner insurance. Insurance companies should raise premiums for gun owners and/or offer discounts to non-gun owners that have security systems. Guns with special safety features can have lower insurance rates.
Background checks, mandatory waiting periods, home inspections.
None of these proposals involve banning guns. I am confident they would lead to reduced gun deaths over time.
Yes, quite a number of them. I didn’t go down the list, but it does seem as though it is close to everyone.
That’s why those who serve alcohol have to take a class on determining if someone is too drunk to be served. If I serve someone a beer, and they get into an accident, I can be in trouble.
Gun shop owners do not have any responsibility to not sell a gun to someone too psychotic to be trusted with a deadly weapon. They can sell someone a gun who walks out and starts shooting people, and not one word to the proprietor.
Hard sell, but I agree. The proceeds from those taxes can go towards the medical and disability costs of those affected by guns. People always bring up the number of those killed by guns, but the number injured is much higher, and a gun injury can run up some serious medical bills, and leave you disabled for life.
As far as losing your gun, you should be asked how that happened. If some seriously equipped thieves broke into your home and cracked you gun safe, then you did what you could, and you can only do so much. If someone wanders into your home and pulls your gun out from your couch cushions, then you should be held to some account for making a weapon that easy to access.
Give a good premium on buy back of guns that are no longer available for sale to most people.
And make mandatory that the FFL dealer asks, “And what do you need this for?”
Don’t need to ban guns, but the current interpretation of 2A would still stand in the way of most of those proposals. If we could get a policy that protects public safety, as well as respecting the second amendment, then great. If not, if 2A stands in the way of public safety, then the bill of rights was meant to promote life and liberty, not to be a suicide pact, and should be changed.
Licensing and registration already exist, but registration is specifically and purposefully being kept in the 16th century.
A whole generation of Americans grew up believing that any minute they would be incinerated by nuclear bombs, along with all of their friends, their family, their pets, and the entire country. This is a damn sight more dire of a predicament than a fire, a tornado, OR a school shooting.
That same generation elected a president who talks in an appallingly cavalier manner about nuclear weapons and in fact did so during his entire campaign, making it crystal clear that their horrific consequences carried no emotional weight for him whatsoever.
I would not count on future generations to improve anything.
I grew up on the tail end of that era.
Nuclear war was a bit more of an ephemeral threat. That trigger never got pulled, no one was ever killed.
Had we experienced a limited nuclear exchange during the cold war, we’d probably take our nukes more seriously, but as it is, most people just don’t think that anyone, even Trump, would ever use them.
Had we experienced a full scale exchange, then we probably wouldn’t be as worried about school shootings.
The entirety of that quote is every bit as much a dirty fucking lie as the first part by itself.
Some countries have actual gun control, and in those countries it DOES work, it DOES reduce mass killings and it DOES reduce violent crime (particularly murders) a whole hell of a lot more than “a bit”.
It’s a dead fucking lie. There is no excuse for it, there is no nuance there about how gun control isn’t a magical cure-all, there is no acknowledgement that it would take actual work on our part to make it successful, it’s just a blanket statement that gun control doesn’t do what it obviously DOES do in dozens of places where they actually have it.