Oh look! You’re back! Do you and Elvis think about murder so much because you want to murder? Good Christ, I’m amazed that you function well enough in a text based medium even to misunderstand the conversation. I’d have bet heavily on you to just not be able to read at all.
You know, I went back and looked at your posts to this thread. Even for The Pit, your offerings are content-free. You have actually managed to make Elvis the second most stupid person in the thread. Congratulations, I guess.
From what you describe, I would like Califonia regs nationwide.
That’s an answer to your question, not to mine. What would you be willing to offer to attain CA’s regs nationwide? Anything? Nothing? Haven’t given it sufficient thought?
Why would I want to give up anything? That’s a pretty unrealistic expectation. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but sooner or later the steady increase in horrific gun violence will turn public opinion against easy, unfettered access to guns on demand. The longer you postpone dealing with it, the more Draconian the solutions they demand will be. You can’t just kick the can down the road without consequences.
I can just picture Jimmy Stewart saying that in a Frank Capra movie. Who did you have in mind?
I won’t begrudge your opinion here, as long as you aren’t asking for nor complaining about the lack of compromise. I would say that recent history does not align to your view - gun violence has not been steadily increasing, and public opinion has not been turning.
I expect technology will play a part in the future landscape of gun laws. I’m hopeful 3D printing makes the idea that guns can be banned an anachronism. Look at the recent SCOTUS ruling about gay marriage. A marriage in one state must be recognized in another state. Imagine if the same logic applied to concealed carry permits? Places like CA would be up in arms that non-residents enjoy greater civil rights than residents and the laws would tumble.
You may be optimistic about what the future holds - so am I.
I directly refute a statement that you make and rather than counter and defend you choose to ignore, deflect, and redirect. While no one actually expects reasoned discourse from you, you could at least make the occasional effort. Who knows? Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
But to address your deflection…
[ul]
[li]Allow citizens to defend themselves and others.[/li][li]Do nothing. The status quo will eventually lead to the previous solution.[/li][li]—This ends reasonable legislation—[/li][li]Pass weapon bans that do nothing but give anti-gunners warm fuzzies.[/li][li]Ban all weapons. Disarming citizens and ignored by criminals.[/li][li]Pass laws creating criminals from citizens with a single signature.[/li][/ul]
The cities with the highest crime rates have the strictest gun laws. Unarmed citizens -v- armed criminals. Criminals ignore gun laws. Who knew?
First of all, the tide is not going in the direction you think it is. Gun laws are being relaxed across the country. SCOTUS is likely to enforce the constitutional right to bear arms (the right to carry).
Second, we do not have “unfettered access to guns on demand” Guns are about the most regulated product on the market. Some people want access to guns to be limited to cops and that’s fine, just repeal the second amendment. All you have to do is get 2/3rds of each house of congress and 3/4ths of the states to agree with you and you’re set. But seeing as we can’t even get 40 members of the senate to support an assault weapons ban, we are a long way from the “draconian solutions” you mention.
I suspect we will have light sabers and plasma rifles before we get anywhere close to those draconian consequences.
In short, the gun rights side does not have to compromise right now and you do but you seem to think that the opposite is true.
They are not complaining about a lack of compromise, they are complaining about our failure to surrender and capitulate.
There is no steady increase in horrific gun violence. Your side isn’t winning and the idea that you will eventually is wishful thinking.
“Right now” being the operative words in that sentence. The frequency and barbarity of mass shootings is accelerating, and there will be a point at which people will happily trade liberty for safety. Social change can come out of nowhere; witness the public opinion on gay marriage in the last ten years.
You are never going to know what hit you.
No. We are complaining about your active hostility toward reducing the number of killings, and your having to resort to delusional scenarios and “No, you’re the sickos!” assertions to do so.
All this time and you still can’t be bothered to state a view other than your own accurately, or even with a relevant caricature.
“Nuh-uh!” is not a refutation.
How about something related to life here on Earth? :rolleyes:
Have you thought about answering a question you were already asked? If something is a good idea, why should it be balanced by a bad one? That’s just weird. If it’s a good idea, we should all be in favor of doing it, right?
Unless you’re not really willing to discuss anything at all, even to save lives, which is what the evidence suggests, not to your favor.
You never do. Of course, you have the excuse of being a moral coward, dishonest, and just not very bright.
Still waiting to hear you say that you don’t desire to murder children. Heck, I’ll settle for you just affirming that you don’t want to murder anyone. C’mon. You can do it. Don’t be a worthless shitstain for once in your life. Give your mother one moment from your life that won’t fill her with regret.
Says the pedophile.
Mass shooting accounts for less than 1% of shooting deaths. I think enough people realize this that that we won’t have draconian results. I don’t see us repealing the second amendment based on a mass shooting.
It takes repeated shocks of that kind to break through the walls of denial propped up by the likes of yourself. The frequency is not reducing, either, for reasons you know well even if you can’t face up to them squarely.
You’ve repeatedly stated that there is an “acceptable number” of gun killings as the price of, well, something or other that sounds like “freedom” to you. Are you willing to tell us what the number is that you find acceptable? And how you can claim that people who want fewer killings are the real sickos?
I thought bone has been making it pretty clear that he thinks California’s laws are horrible.