This could be interesting. Most companies I never really heard of except FedEx and Enterprise.
“Customer feedback has caused us to review our relationship with the NRA", from the First National Bank of Omaha..could this be the push back that will result in some sort of reform?
...when advertisers withdrew their ads from Fox because of things O'Reilly or Hannity said, their were other sponsors eager to take their place. We'll have to wait and see what happens to the NRA's business partners. Maybe other greedy banksters will want to team with the NRA and offer an "official" NRA credit card. Or some other avaricious auto rental company will want to be the "official" car rental agency of the NRA. Never underestimate corporate greed - if a company thinks it will gain more business than it will lose by being associated with the NRA, they'll do it in a New York minute.
-- Modified on 2/23/2018 1:05:54 AM
libs think their might be a "tipping point"
God that cracks me up!
If there was no "tipping point" after Sandy Hook and none after Las Vegas, why would anyone think there'd be a "tipping point" now?
Here's what I predict: even if we get some half-assed legislation now, when the next mass shooting happens -- and it will --you and the rest of the righty crowd will bellow that gun legislation is pointless and will never work.
You might even be right about that, too.
..know how to properly reply to a post. Now go back to playing your banjo:
So everybody knows that and the reaction is different this time around, for two main.
Most Americans can identify with these kids and their families.
Also people are using Twitter to expose companies doing business with the NRA.
The pressure is clearly working in some cases too.
Then again, when 63% of the mass shootings in the US have been perpetrated by angry white guys, I'd say there might be a problem.
I hate to bring up the abortion issue again, but there are a LOT of similarities to the debate. How do you honestly feel when some right wing group proposes "common sense restrictions" on abortion rights, let's say something that most of us can get behind like "partial birth" very late term abortions where the fetus is actually viable?
Do you support those attempts to limit abortion rights, or do you recognize them for what they are, a whittling away at abortion rights with the ultimate goal of making ALL abortions illegal?
Now lets switch back to the gun debate. SOME people really are interested in "common sense" gun laws, but many others see this as a stepping stone towards their ultimate goal of completely eliminating the Second Amendment and making the private ownership of ALL firearms illegal. If you don't believe me, just read this very board, Huck is just one of the lefties here who has flatly admitted that is his goal, and he is hardly alone in this belief, is it any wonder that the two sides are so entrenched?
What are the odds that the 2nd amendment will be removed? A new amendment to repeal would have to pass the House and Senate with a 2/3 vote. Then 38 out of 50 state legislators would have to vote to approve the amendment to repeal! 
I'd say it's much more likely that the Supreme Court would interpret the amendment permitting new limits to the "Right to bear arms", and interpreting what "a well regulated militia" is. I don't see that happening any time soon.
What are the odds that abortion is going to be made illegal? I'd say the odds are about the same as the 2nd Amendment being repealed, but that doesn't mean that the "right to lifers" aren't going to try, and someone needs to "push back"
Plants is being disingenuous when she claims her side is only looking for "common sense" solutions. Several posters right here on this very board have admitted, (bragged) that they want ALL guns out of private hands. BTW, "disingenuous" is just a polite way of calling her a liar. I just got laid, I am about to go play golf, and I am in a rather good mood so I didn't want to just come out and call her a liar even though she was lying out of her teeth. lol
Come on Matt, you were wearing your moderate hat here a few days ago, surely you can see the similarities in the debate. I am one of the few trying to protect both gun rights and abortion rights, and I can see how the "anti's" in both debates are trying to chip away at the rights of the "other side" with an ultimate goal of making both abortion and guns completely illegal. Not to mention both of the "anti's" use the very same claims that children are being murdered because of the inaction by the other side. The anti gunners claim "thousands" of children are murdered by guns while the anti abortionists claim "millions" of children are murdered by abortion. Both groups are totally entrenc
Personally I am already on the record as not being opposed to certain new regulations like banning "bump stocks" or raising the age to buy long guns to 21, but just because I am not opposed to them doesn't mean I think they are going to save a tenth of the number of lives that "hardening" our schools as targets would accomplish.
have said they want to make all guns illegal, somehow, means that EVERYBODY who is asking for some common sense gun control is trying to take away your guns? Or overturn the 2nd amendment? Bullshit. That's a dumb as saying that everyone who agrees with having restrictions on late term abortions (restrictions which do exist, BTW) wants abortion to be completely illegal. I'm lying? GFY.
.
Would it really HURT anyone to have universal background checks in place or drawing a line at selling military assault rifles to civilians. I can't think of anything more common sense than this. And, yet.....
"The people who are pro life simply want abortion to be illegal. Period. There is no middle ground. NO discussion. No compromise that would make satisfy them"
I guess if you are going to start lying like LTM, I am going to need to start treating you like him, so please GFY. I am outta here for the day. I have better things to do than debate people who can't even remember what they said a couple of hours earlier.
That's right. The people who are pro life simply want abortion to be illegal. Period. They are not looking for compromise.
That is not, at all, the same as people who support a woman's right to have an abortion, but also support some common sense restrictions. See...I completely support a woman right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. But I also agree that there should be some limits on the time-frame. What we have in place---which is pretty common sense---prevents abortions in the 3rd trimester unless there are compelling mitigating circumstances.
.
I completely support your right to own a gun. I also completely support some common sense restrictions.
.
So Again---GFY.
"What are the odds that abortion is going to be made illegal? I'd say the odds are about the same as the 2nd Amendment being repealed, but that doesn't mean that the 'right to lifers' aren't going to try, and someone needs to 'push back'"
It's already, in some states, much more difficult to get an abortion than to buy an AR-15. Some of it due to Red State Republican's placing restrictions on them, but much more due to placing restrictions on facilities that can perform them. Some states have only one approved abortion clinic. Let's do the same for availability of purchasing an AR-15.
Yes, there are some on the left, here, who want to do away with all gun ownership. And, some on the right, who want to eliminate all abortions. BTW, your argument about both sides supporting their arguments claiming the desire to save children's lives is true. However, only one side is telling the truth. A zygote or fetus is no more a child than an acorn is an oak tree. But, the reality of this board has little or nothing to do with the greater reality. When you claim the desires of some of the lefties, here, to be that of taking away 2nd amendment rights, you are just using one of the NRA's old canards, that has no basis in reality. Like I was pointing out, what do you believe the odds to be in that ever happening? If I were you, I'd be more concerned, as the NRA is, that autocratic Trump will take them away through an executive order!
-- Modified on 2/25/2018 1:11:59 PM
The people who are pro life simply want abortion to be illegal. Period. There is no middle ground. NO discussion. No compromise that would make satisfy them. They're actually a lot like the 2nd amendment crown in this regard. And this has nothing at all to do with the ability of any woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy being able to cause any actual harm to THEM, or their children or their family. It’s a personal decision made by one person.
People who are asking for common sense gun control in the US are NOT asking that all guns be illegal. You want a hunting rifle, or you like to target shoot, or you want to keep a handgun? Fine. At least get a fucking permit. But 2nd amendment gun nuts can’t even be persuaded that a universal background check to buy weapons is “common sense”. And, this completely unfettered access to weapons—including military style assault weapons IS causing a big problem for all the rest of us. Not just an annoyance. Not just a conflict with our religious belief system.
.
People now send their children off to school with Kevlar backpacks. Parents need to talk their grade schoolers out of wanting tennis shoes with blinking lights because they wouldn't be safe in a shooting situation. Are you kidding me? Teachers have to run safety drills to prepare children for a possible war situation in the classroom. Those kids from Parkland High have lived their entire life in a world in which getting shot in math class is a very real possibility. And the problem is not isolated to schools. We have guys (yes guys---and predominantly white guys) shooting up malls and movie theaters and churches. We have guys walking into guns stores and buying 10-12 guns, one after another—as much ammo and clips as they can carry. Bumpstocks. Silencers. Whatever the fuck they want. And we have no way to know when this happens.
.
We have mass shooting after mass shooting in the US. And, still, the 2nd amendment crowd wants to do absolutely nothing (other than arm teachers?). Because---THEIR rights. Since the NRA (with the help of congress) has been so successful in preventing the capture of any data on gun ownership, the best estimates say that only about %25 of all Americans own a weapon.
.
The other 75% of us have some rights here, too.
Totally agree. All you said here is just basic common sense - don't need a Phd. , just logical and critical thinking ,something these trumptards don't have.This should not even be a loyalist political issue.
You are one of the many lefties arguing for "common sense" gun laws when what you really want is ALL guns confiscated.
Hey Plants, maybe you want someone else to help make your argement that nobody wants to take our right to protect ourselves away. Here it is, right from the horses ass, err mouth. lol
Are you lefties really so fucking stupid that you think your posts aren't still there for all to see? I used to think that as long as fg was around there really was no reason to continue the SPOTYs as no one has come even close to him where it comes to stupidity, but fg you better watch out, you have some serious competition this year.
and you assume all guns? I'll let BM speak for himself. But, what I read there was a reference to assault rifles. And again...2-3 people on this board are not representative of the majority of advocates for sensible gun control. All you have to do is actually READ what people are asking for.
.
Trust me----HEAR ME-----PLEASE---we DO_NOT_WANT_TO_TAKE_ALL_YOUR_GUNS_AWAY. This slippery slope nonsense was the same approach opponents took to marriage equality. Well....err....if we let gay people get married, what's next? Marrying GOATS?! Legalizing pedophilia?!!!!
.
Jiminy 'effin xmas.....
And why is it a one way street with you? Certainly you are smart enough to know that 6% of our population (black males) cause approx 50% of all gun murders. Is that a stat you want to dwell on? Funny how the Leftist media doesn't have Town Halls and wall to wall, day after day coverage to dwell on THAT fact. Actually its not funny, it is fucking TRAGIC.
Guess what? It's NONE OF YOUR business to know how many law abiding citizens buy whatever number of guns they want. Going back to the abortion debate, should people be limited to how many abortions they have? Should they be force to have that info in the public domain? Should we also limit how often people use the first amendment or ANY other amendment???
You really need to stop this "military style assault weapons IS causing a big problem for all the rest of us" bullshit. Those weapons are used in about 1% of all gun homicides, so while you, and FAKE NEWS CNN and PMSNBC have their panties in a wad over this issue, those weapons are only a FRACTION of this debate and yet take up 99.9999% of the air time on those networks and other Leftist media outlets.
And guess what, part 2, plants? Even if they were banned, and even if the ban was 100% effective, it wouldn't make a damn worth of difference as proven by Va Tech and many, many other cases. Hand guns, as GaG has explained, are MUCH easier to handle in close quarters shooting so the shooter would just load up with 4 or 5 hand guns.
But the Va Tech shooter needed ONLY TWO HAND GUNS to kill 32, almost double what the Parkland shooter managed to do with the "assault weapon" AR-15.
By your estimation there is absolutely nothing that can, or should, be done about the proliferation of guns in the US. But this. But that....I know. And nobody is 'playing a race card'. The majority of mass shootings are perpetrated by white guys. That's a fact.
.
And you can keep 'splainin' to me why selling assault rifles to civilians is a perfectly normal thing for a society to do. And, I (along with millions of other Americans---including many gun owners) will still disagree.
You felt compelled to add in "angry" white men to boot AND you felt the need to bring in race TWICE.
How would your side deal with someone using the term "angry" black men? Would YOU EVER use that term? Have you ever? Yes, you certainly played the race card. Just own it Plants.
And no, with 350+ million guns already on the streets, the gun proliferation debate left port decades ago. Like I said, "assault" rifles, if banned and utopia set in with no one ever getting one again, would only be replaced by "assault" hand guns, which have been proven to be more lethal than the AR-15 in similar scenarios.
were the majority of people shooting up schools and malls and movie theaters and concert venues-- you bet your ass I would I would say angry black guys. If it was women, I'd say women. If it was hispanic guys......Not about race, Jack. When it comes to mass shootings, it's a factual description.
Because then you would agree me that the biggest threat to an African-American, of any gender, comes from an "angry black male" and not as the lib media would have us believe that the bigger problem is rogue, white cops out to murder them.
Correct?
damn jack. Is it even possible for you to stick to one subject?
And for lying when you said "you bet your ass I would I would say angry black guys."
I cant say I am shocked as the Left mantra is to rip "whitey" whenever and wherever possible, but cant seem to ever say a fucking thing when blacks are clearly the main problem in an issue.
Yep, clear to all now you were playing the race card and that road is a one way street with your ilk. Thank you for the confirmation.
hey jack...we're not talking about an issue for which "blacks are clearly the main problem..." whatever that might be. When black guys regularly start going on mass shooting sprees, I'll point to angry black men, ok?
Take a trip to Chicago or Baltimore.
I'll await your reply when you return.
hey jack...we're not talking about an issue for which "blacks are clearly the main problem..." whatever that might be. When black guys regularly start going on mass shooting sprees, I'll point to angry black men, ok?
Did you say you're a self-hating black man?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
You just can't bring yourself to even say the words can you?
It's one thing when an obvious racist like Dirk brings up FACTS about black crime and other less than flattering statistics about black people over and over again, but that doesn't mean that a rational person can't call him a racist AND admit his facts really are FACTS at the same time, but snowflakes like you just choke over any words that aren't politically correct and you just can't say it, even when the FACTS are right there in your face that not all statistics favor people of color.
Thanks for playing, Game, set and match to Jack. Well played.
have perpetrated the majority of mass shootings in the US (which is true) makes me a racist? And I can't bring myself to say what words? You're really reaching here....
It's hard for Trump supporters, to undertand real facts.
Also hear the truth about some of their fellow members.
So don't pay Lady Gaga responses any mind.
I walked her right into that one. She either had to agree with me or lie about the truth. She chose to lie. You know when FG has to come to your defense you are fucked on the race issue. lmao
So what are you talking about now?
You have no creditbility at all and proved my points.
When it comes to racist Trump supporters making things up.
We all know most of the mass shooters in this country are white males!
I guess you and Lady Gaga, can't handle the truth.
-I say angry white guys do most mass shootings….which is true.
.
-You say how DARE I say “angry white guys”!!!!!….you claim that I would NEVER say “angry black guys..”
.
-To which I reply: sure I would, if black guys were doing the shooting
.
-To which, completely out of left field you pivot as you are so prone to doing and reply that if I would really say the words “angry black guys” (gasp) then I MUST agree with you that ***the biggest threat to an African-American, of any gender, comes from an "angry black male" and not as the lib media would have us believe that the bigger problem is rogue, white cops out to murder them***
.
Huh? How did we get THERE? Biggest threat to black folks of any gender…..lib media…rogue white cops…? And, you conclude that I either have to agree with your statement, or I’m a hypocritical racist lib who is lying about the truth and out to “rip whitey” whenever possible?
.
Hate to break it to you jack, but the above is not a statement of empirical fact. Biggest threat? How about obesity, heart disease, and diabetes? If what you’re trying to get at is more along the lines of: #1 cause of death for young black men 15 to 34… then say that. Don’t throw out some hyperbolic nonsense and declare I MUST agree with you or I’m lying.
.
And, you do realize that calling angry white guys---“angry white guys” is not racist, right?…Nor is it racist to say that angry white guys are responsible for most mass shootings in the US, when…ehem…angry white guys are responsible for most mass shootings in the US.
Jack! We're not talking about hands here. By diverting the issue to what is the "biggest threat" you are appearing to ignore the other threats. Is what you perceive as "the biggest threat" the only one to be considered, and efforts directed to remedy?
-- Modified on 2/26/2018 5:58:05 PM
"Hand guns, as GaG has explained, are MUCH easier to handle in close quarters shooting so the shooter would just load up with 4 or 5 hand guns."
Then why aren't the SWAP teams solely relying on those handguns, in close quarters?
I can't recall seeing a SWAT team charge into a building, solely with their pistols drawn!
SWAT doesn't know what it will find when it enters a building plus their training makes them the best of the best. In addition to that, they may go in with two dozen men!
Are you trying to say this nut had SWAT style training? Are you forgetting he knows it's a "gun free" zone and there WONT be a threat to him when he enters?
or, just trying to confuse the issue. My point, which I thought was very clear, and was not in reference to the shooter was, if pistols are more effective in close quarters, why don't the SWAT teams, predominately use pistols vs. Assault weapons? I'm speaking to you and GaG, so as not to waste time. Yes, I have had the basic military training in weapons, and I shot competitively in the service. Along with that, I've worked with several members of SWAT teams in the LA area, so you need not talk down to me. Even shooting an Assault rifle, or and AR-15 from the hip can be very effective; perhaps as effective as shooting a pistol from a ready position, and there is little given up due to tight quarters. So, if you failed to get my point, if SWAT teams believed they were being handicapped by using Assault weapons, even in close quarters, they would not be using them.
P.S. My father was a police officer for a time, and he'd laugh at GaG's assertion about 3 or 4 pistols being more deadly than an AR-15, and he was in the service also.
Do you REALLY think that SWAT goes into a known close quarter situation with the same weapons that Cruz used?
SWAT officers typically use something more along the lines of an M4 for close quarter combat for the very reasons you brush over, If you have ever carried an M-16/AR-15 you would know that they are much slower to "bring around" in close quarters and only an idiot fires from the hip.
PLEASE stop Matt, you are seriously starting to embarass yourself here.
Length of M4=39.625 inches, AR-15=approx. 39.625 inches.
m4 = 33 in stock extended ans 29.75 in stock retracted as per link.
where do you get your information ......
You're Welcome
In Matt-boy We Distrust
The AR-15, and other weapons like it, were NOT designed to fight in close quarters at point blank range. They were designed for distance shooting as they are much more accurate in that scenario. An AR-15 is too big and too unwieldy to use in very close quarters when compared to a hand gun.
The reason SWAT uses primarily semi-automatic rifles is they DON'T know what they find when they enter a building and cant take the risk of being outgunned.
These school shooters know EXACTLY what they will find; hoards of scared shitless kids and teachers that pose NO threat to them knowing full well there is ZERO possibility he will be outgunned.
Thats the difference Matt. One knows exactly what he will find while SWAT usually has NO idea what may await them. Different weapons and different tactics for different scenarios. That's why Matt.
"The reason SWAT uses primarily semi-automatic rifles is they DON'T know what they find when they enter a building and cant take the risk of being outgunned."
So, if SWAT can be effective, in close quarters, with a semi-automatic rifle, why can't the mass shooter? What do Marines use in close quarters, rifles or carbines.
I believe the whole argument about which weapons are most effective at killing the most amount of people, in close quarters, is a red herring. However you want to argue about the most efficient weapons to kill the most amount of people, in close quarters, the shooter at Stoneman was quite successful. The old 3 or 4 pistol story is just theory. Not much reality to back it up.
SWAT teams carry a variety of weapons and use what is best for the situation at hand. Not all members carry the same weapon based solely these issues. That's where the "T" comes into play...TACTICS.
In the school incident SWAT most likely was not on scene till well after the killings took place, All they did was clear the building to make sure it was safe for rescue personnel to enter, access the injuries and treat those who were treatable.
As for the weapons of choice.....Matt again you failed...miserably. History clearly shows that pistols can and were used during mass shooting and used successfully without a long gun.
Rifles or Carbines? Well again Matt a total failure......Carbines are rifles and rifles can be carbines.
Seung Hiu Cho, a senior at Va Tech used 2 weapons.....a glock handgun and a Walther pistol to successfully kill 32 people and injure 23 more with 17 of those being by gunfire.
"The reason SWAT uses primarily semi-automatic rifles is they DON'T know what they find when they enter a building and cant take the risk of being outgunned."
So, if SWAT can be effective, in close quarters, with a semi-automatic rifle, why can't the mass shooter? What do Marines use in close quarters, rifles or carbines.
I believe the whole argument about which weapons are most effective at killing the most amount of people, in close quarters, is a red herring. However you want to argue about the most efficient weapons to kill the most amount of people, in close quarters, the shooter at Stoneman was quite successful. The old 3 or 4 pistol story is just theory. Not much reality to back it up.
-- Modified on 2/26/2018 8:40:08 PM
SWAT is not limited to "semi-automatic" rifles, unlike the AR-15 used by Cruz, the M-4s commonly used in close quarter situations by SWAT are not semi-automatic, but are fully automatic with at the users discretion.
The AR-15 is "styled" after the "scary" looking military combat machine guns. The M-4 is not just "scary looking" it is a very efficient weapon. The only thing an AR-15 has in common with a true assault rifle/weapon besides looking scary is the large capacity magazines that are available for it. Aside from the magazine capacity any hunting rifle is much deadlier than the .223 round fired by most military and military styled weapons.
I am well aware they have, and use, fully automatic weapons as I have friends in SWAT. I was replying to Matts issue of pistols vs. the semi-automatic AR-15.
Fuck, I was supposed to be out on the golf course instead of being inside watching it, but here I am so I will at least TRY to explain this to you.
SWAT uses actual "assault rifles" not scary looking guns that just look like assault weapons. When SWAT enters an active shooter scene, they don't know if they are going to be forced to take shots at longer than basically point blank range or not, so they have to be prepared to take down a would be assailant at 10 feet or a hundred feet. and a rifle is most definitely more effective than a pistol at a hundred feet. When SWAT shows up on the scene, they are well trained, well armed and work in groups to take out specific targets, their mission is NOT to create as much carnage as possible.
Matt, without being disrespectful, I thought you were a vet. Even guys who work in the mess hall are taught these things, surely you went through basic training and qualified with an M-16, didn't you? For someone who had to have taken at least some training in firearms you are woefully ignorant on the subject. I would expect this from someone like Plants who most likely has never held a gun in her hand, but for someone who claims to be a vet I find your lack of knowledge on the subject a bit troubling.
A killer like Cruz has no such worries in a "gun free zone" he knows that for several minuties he is going to be able to mow unarmed people down at basically point blank range without any fear of anyone returning fire for at least several minutes. The AR 15 that Cruz used is only an assault weapon in the fact that it's a semi automatic firearm that LOOKS scary and in the fact that it has larger capacity magazines that a typical semi-automatic weapon.
If you want to have a debate on what gun contrl measures are going to be the most effective, can't we at least agree that learning a bit on the subject would be more helpful instead of just trying to ban guns that LOOK scary?
You would be really fucking wrong to assume I've never held a gun. As I've said before, I learned how to shoot a gun at an early age. I was raised around guns. I've shot many different types of guns. I happen to be an excellent shot, too...BTW...as if any of that fucking matters.
AR 15's are not just guns that LOOK scary. These guns were originally issued to soldiers in VM, and they have been progressively perfected since then. Not only do they LOOK scary, they actually are scary. And they have no place in civilian society.
.
And, really? You think this Cruz fella only went on a shooting rampage because the school was a gun free zone? Reality check. (1) The school was NOT a gun free zone. There were 2 armed retired police officers there---as if that did any good. Add in the police officers who responded to the scene but did jack-shit other than wait outside and hide behind their cars......(2) nobody who goes into a school with the intent to mow down as many people as possible is thinking rationally and weighing whether the place is a gun free zone......
I know you tried to obfuscate the fact that your link was from TWENTY TWO years ago, but things have changed a lot since then.
You are right about one thing, "as if having guards did any good" You libs are hilarious, first off you hate LE and their ability to protect us, but in the very same breath you want to deny the rest of us the ability to defend ourselves since LE is incompetent. By your little choo choo train of logic the only way for us to be safe is to outlaw ALL weapons, but you deny that is your goal. Please answer me this, are you dishonest, stupid, or do you just think the rest of us are stupid?
The AR 15 is NOT a "weapon of war" it's simply a semi-automatic rifle that LOOKS scary and is actually a lot LESS lethal than a typical hunting rifle except for the fact it can be equipped with high capacity magazines. If you want to address the problems of mass shootings you need to address the issue of "high capacity magazines" not the scary looking weapons that use them.
Hmmm! Perhaps you're willing to face the parents of those 17 children murdered by a gun "that LOOKS scary"!
WOW....17 children? Really? Name those children. Again you failed miserably in this thread. There were 14 CHILDREN and 3 School Administrators. Funny how you pathetic dumbass dems can't count......or read.
I guess next you will be telling us about the number of school shooting....which again are tainted.
Hmmm! Perhaps you're willing to face the parents of those 17 children murdered by a gun "that LOOKS scary"!
since the assault weapon ban expired.
They fell by 37% during the ban and rose by 183% after the ban expired. These numbers, of course, show correlation, not causation and need to be adjusted depending on how you define a mass public shooting, the actual weapon used, and the changes in population. But it is a better number than you gave us and if you take out domestic shootings and limit the category to six or more dead and no incidental crime, I think the number of times AWs are used in staggering.
The NRA applauds your attempt to use homicide stats to mask the issue is noted…and we understand why you did that. That is not the issue, Jack, as I have explained to you back channel – murder is not preventable but slaughter is.
How do the experts - including gun nut John Lott who was on the panel - rate AW bans on a scale of 1 to 10 re effectiveness? 6.8 according to the study referenced in the Post. How many mass public shooting in NY since the AW ban? Zero.
But use some common sense here – if you are planning a mass public shooting, are you are going to go in with a couple of hand guns, or an AR 15 with the biggest possible clip?
Btw I loved your idea of putting police stations in the schools if economically feasible. But you are in total denial that an AW ban is needed as part of an “all of the above” policy.
Why don't you address my Va Tech shooter issue and the carnage he brought vs. the Parkland shooter that no one else can counter. Clearly the issue is NOT the AR-15.
The issue most certainly is the homicide problem as our vile Leftist media blows the "assault" rifle issue completely out of proportion. It is a very small part of the gun issue. Infinitesimally small and you know this.
If your NY state law was "working" why is the very strict gun laws in Chicago, Baltimore, etc NOT working. Well you would say its bc people can bring in guns from states that have less stringent laws. So why isn't that happening in NY?
Isn't it quite possible, since you admit the "numbers, of course, show correlation, not causation" that we don't have a large enough sample size to make any determination about the NY law? And if there were a sudden rash of mass public shootings in NY, would you then say you were wrong or would you argue the sample size is too small. lol
So lets get to your "common sense" point. If the AR-15 was banned, and there was NO way ANYONE could get one, you DONT think these nuts would then switch to something like the Walther 22 and the Glock 19, both hand guns, that were used to kill 32 at Va Tech?
Make me wonder what kind of corrupt shithole country we live in where lobbyist like the NRA control our democracy - yet we point finger to other countries and call them names when we are the same thing just doing it in a finer well decorated disguised subtle way.
Nobody is trying to stop you from worshiping and being loyal to your lord and savior bigot dumb donniedouchebag - this is not even a political issue,but an issue of very basic common sense and logical and critical thinking .- if you are not lacking.
Social media have totally dumbed down america. This is where dumb asses look for truth ,they do care about research and reality anymore since this donniedumbass was put in the post of president by the Electoral College.He can certainly do nor say no wrong in your opinion and his solution for everything no matter how dumb or twisted is totally fine with you.But guess what, people are getting fed up of your dumb asses, and the younger generation of high school student have figured out your dumb asses as well ; and they are not looking to the likes of you for change.
The NRA not getting a dime from me nor my family,they better go sell more guns because that is their solution for mass shooting. But most of today's students are not uneducated old school old farts ,they recognized that the NRA and the politicians they control don't care about them and have no interested in banning these guns ,and that all they care about is the millions to be made.
As for the dumb asses on this site and those across American it's a waste of time arguing with your dumb asses.My wish for all of you is that you and your families get caught in future shootings- we will see if you get a brain or learn anything then,if you happen to survive.
Since many on the right are being paid off from the NRA.
It makes a lot of sense, why they blocked any gun laws.
Obama can't even help solve the problem in his adopted home city of SHITHOLE Chicago. Multiple murders everyday. No BLM, No NAACP and definitely no pussy ass Obama.
Funny how when it's a bad thing it's never Obama's fault, but let it be something good Lefty wants to give all the credit to Obama.
It's three branches of government and the Congress refused to pass any new gun laws.
We know why, most of them take large donations from the NRA.
So Obama was dealing with a do nothing Congress too!
-- Modified on 3/3/2018 12:01:54 AM
One thing Obama was good at, selling guns and helping with gun shows. The Nation's Gun Show went from two events a year to six at one point under his presidency. You want an "Obama Best Gun Salesman Evwe" shirt, there are plenty out there.
Also, let's not forget about the "Fast and Furious" Campaign. Putting guns back in the hands of criminals. Same gun that killed an enforcement officer.
giving Obama the credit for increased gun sales. You see, the real reason for the increase in gun sale was due to the NRA lying about Obama want to take their Second Amendment rights, and a bunch of bozos believing them. Yep, the NRA is quite proficient in stampeding the herd. Like a herd of buffalo.
It's never Obama's fault. Russian meddling was taking place in 2014 and he did nothing....but it wasn't his fault that nothing was done.
Wonder if it as something to do with the open mic event and the message for Putin?
Nah, couldn't have been......Obama was the GOAT!!!
giving Obama the credit for increased gun sales. You see, the real reason for the increase in gun sale was due to the NRA lying about Obama want to take their Second Amendment rights, and a bunch of bozos believing them. Yep, the NRA is quite proficient in stampeding the herd. Like a herd of buffalo.
The only thing that might have been overstated a bit was his ability to do so, but without organizations like the NRA, made up of millions of law abiding gun owners, who knows just how many of our 2nd Amendment rights would have been trampled over by Obama and the rest of the anti-gunners.
It's hard to prove a negative, but it's most definitely NOT a lie nor an overstatement to say that Obama was an "anti-gunner"
The things that would have deeply upset people in Georgia.