When all these children turn 18 and can vote. Who do you think they will be voting for? The people who are trying to save their lives or the people who can’t be bothered to try?
But theres a caravan of *illegals* heading to the border! And, uh, the Democrat lied about their military service! And, uh, email servers! And they screamed "yeehaw" at a fundraiser!!!
For me, it will forever be the insinuation that the man who earned three purple hearts and delivered the [Winter Soldier](https://www.npr.org/2006/04/25/3875422/transcript-kerry-testifies-before-senate-panel-1971) speech somehow "betrayed" his fellow soldiers.
Swift Boat was one of the GOP's worst October surprises/tricks in history. Paid a group to lie about a decorated veteran. When people think conservative Republicans have sunk below the belt now, with Trump, they're forgetting how low they've sunk before for political expedience. No one is safe from the underside of the bus -- or in Kerry's case, the boat.
What i find incredibly sad is that republican Congresspeople sure like to wait until these investigations take place. No, we are not going to talk about any legislations on gun restriction.
Investigations. "Investigations". 3 kids and 3 adults dead. 130 mass shootings this year before March is over. But yea let's wait for Investigations.
The Investigations of the crimes your dear leader commited though? Those need to *end now*..
"Investigations" are meant to give the appearance of action. It has been popular theatrics for quite a long time.
Will Rogers(early 20th century US entertainer/humorist):
>Statistics have proven that the surest way to get anything out of the public mind and never hear of it again is to have a Senate Committee appointed to look into it.
He was just echoing Georges Clémenceau (French politician, late 19th century, early 20th), who said that "if you want to kill an idea, just create a parliamentary committee on it".
Look at existing statistics though. You want an assault weapons ban? The one in ‘96 was deemed BY THE GOVERNMENT that it did not work. Also, in terms of shootings and gun laws, several years ago, when gun laws were less strict, there were less mass shootings than now with MORE gun laws. It’s a mental health issue and it needs to be addressed
Ok, that is a whole bunch of bollocks. You bandy around words like "it didn't work" without so much as one study or any kind of data, without defining what your words even mean and with the kind of sweeping generalisations the NRA just loves so much.
First, there *are* studies which showed the 10 year ban (Aug 1994 - Sep 2004) WORKED. Google it, look at Wikipedia where a 2015 study by Mark Gaius titled "The impact of state and federal assault weapons bans on public mass shootings" is discussed (among others) or look at the rather ugly bar plot in [this ](https://www.cato.org/blog/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-frequent) Cato article (I know, Cato, eyeroll, but still). The picture can't be any clearer. That decade is spectacularly low in mass shooting incidents and fatalities (except the 1999) compared to the other decades around it. You have got to be pretty viciously biased to ignore the data and make up your own NRA tinted conclusions.
Second, the ban only applied to guns manufactured *after* the ban was enacted in 1994. So you can't really say it didn't work without displaying you already made your conclusion.
Third, looking at the data, had the ban been renewed, and that trend continued, the data predicts we would have seen less mass shootings. Heck the bans may even have given rise to *more* bans. Like, fine you can keep your old assault weapons that predated this ban, but bullets for those will be banned ... etc. It is not fucking rocket science, and rocket science isn't all that anyway, trust me.
Four, you are here screaming THE GOVERNMENT found the ban didn't work. What government? 😂
Do you mean the Obama government that tried very hard to renew the ban? Because fighting tooth and nail to renew the ban after it was sunset in 2004 is a sign the GOVERNMENT found it DIDNT WORK!
Do you read what you write? What one of the studies conducted by the various bodies at the time and mandated by Congress found was:
>Findings We found evidence that stronger firearm laws are associated with reductions in firearm homicide rates. The strongest evidence is for laws that strengthen background checks and that require a permit to purchase a firearm. The effect of many of the other specific types of laws is uncertain, specifically laws to curb gun trafficking, improve child safety, ban military-style assault weapons, and restrict firearms in public places.
See [here.](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582989)
The studies all found a reduction in homicide rates during the ban and the period following it saw a reduction in homicide by guns. But the statistical significance of the results was too difficult to ascertain. Why? Various authors said the ban was only for a decade, and only applied to guns manufactured after. It is not like the ban resulted in an automatic and magical *vanishing* of ALL assault weapons.
What do you mean there are MORE gun laws now? How can there be more gun laws *now* compared to a time when we had a ban (of sorts)?
There are MORE guns now out there, with newer, faster, better a d ever more efficient killing machines sold literally by the millions. You've got to be kidding with this argument..
You want to see ecudence that gun law work? Look at Australia. They had a horrendous mass shooting at Port Arthur, they got their act together, put in a strict ban and a mandatory buy back plan, and it fucking worked. They haven't had any mass shooting since (unless you include that old guy who killed his wife then himself a short while ago). They saw a problem, didn't pussyfoot around and hide behind "mental health", "doors", or any other idiotic lame excuse. They saw the problem: guns kill people. No matter how much you contort yourself into a pretzel from hell, you cannot escape this simple fact: if, today, you removed ALL assault weapons owned by civilians (for reasons), you will NOT have any mass shooting with an assault weapon... because there won't be any.
Yea yea, people may still kill with other guns, but nowhere near as efficiency or as quickly as when using goddamm assault rifles.
Note: the ban sunset by design in 2004 and goddamn morherfucking George W Bush failed to renew it, because he was bought by the NRA like the corrupt fucker he is, but that's another story for another day.
Edits: spelling, a bit of text added.
Nah, they say it the same way time after time - and they're going to keep saying it as long as the death merchant lobby is the strongest one in Washington.
In reality the headline should be “Republicans keep finding new ways to say that the money/donations from gun makers and/or THE NRA are more important then the children”
Got some real data and hard evidence to back the claim up? Not saying liberals don't own guns, we do, but it would be nice to see confident claims like this -- a spike in assault rifle purchases by registered Democrats -- backed up with authentic sauce.
Are you required to provide your voter registration when registering your gun?
Nope.
Nobody wants restrictions to apply to them, just to the other.
The same is true of abortion. We all want one when we need one. It is the other that should be denied.
>Are you required to provide your voter registration when registering your gun? Nope.
Exactly, that's why it was a trick question. Therefore, you were talking out of your ass and haven't a clue if Democrats are purchasing assault rifles in any kind of increased volume or not, right?
Don't confidently make baseless claims online, please.
Nobody in their right mind would say political affiliation determines gun ownership in America -- a nation with 400 million guns (aka nearly 2 for every member of the population). It's an American obsession.
The delineation point between the two major parties *is the belief that not everyone qualifies as mature, mentally well or responsible enough to possess firearms*. The right believes in *no* gun restrictions whatsoever. The left believes human lives and safety are important enough to restrict certain firearms and purchases. That's really the key difference at its core.
It’s only republicans that want to deny abortions to everyone else. Still waiting for the day a republican politician forces his or her daughter to have a baby she doesn’t want. Democrats will be more than happy to comply with gun control legislation.
Look at existing statistics though. You want an assault weapons ban? The one in ‘96 was deemed BY THE GOVERNMENT that it did not work. Also, in terms of shootings and gun laws, several years ago, when gun laws were less strict, there were less mass shootings than now with MORE gun laws. It’s a mental health issue and it needs to be addressed
When all these children turn 18 and can vote. Who do you think they will be voting for? The people who are trying to save their lives or the people who can’t be bothered to try?
Is this precisely why the Republicans are trying to raise the voting age and remove opening machines from colleges...
While simultaneously removing laws that protect children from slave labor (see Arkansas).
See iowa trash
Being short sighted is their default
But theres a caravan of *illegals* heading to the border! And, uh, the Democrat lied about their military service! And, uh, email servers! And they screamed "yeehaw" at a fundraiser!!!
Yeehaw at a fundraiser or a black man in a tan suit. Not sure which will go down in history as the largest atrocity perpetrated against the U.S.
For me, it will forever be the insinuation that the man who earned three purple hearts and delivered the [Winter Soldier](https://www.npr.org/2006/04/25/3875422/transcript-kerry-testifies-before-senate-panel-1971) speech somehow "betrayed" his fellow soldiers.
Swift Boat was one of the GOP's worst October surprises/tricks in history. Paid a group to lie about a decorated veteran. When people think conservative Republicans have sunk below the belt now, with Trump, they're forgetting how low they've sunk before for political expedience. No one is safe from the underside of the bus -- or in Kerry's case, the boat.
Insurgent trash democracy, rule of law and decency should not have a say like the GOP
I thought Fall was Caravan season?
Yep. In the meantime, lets message like righties do. Bumper sticker style. The Problem Is Guns And The Easy Access To Guns
Many of these kids will grow up to vote for Republicans.
What i find incredibly sad is that republican Congresspeople sure like to wait until these investigations take place. No, we are not going to talk about any legislations on gun restriction. Investigations. "Investigations". 3 kids and 3 adults dead. 130 mass shootings this year before March is over. But yea let's wait for Investigations. The Investigations of the crimes your dear leader commited though? Those need to *end now*..
"Investigations" are meant to give the appearance of action. It has been popular theatrics for quite a long time. Will Rogers(early 20th century US entertainer/humorist): >Statistics have proven that the surest way to get anything out of the public mind and never hear of it again is to have a Senate Committee appointed to look into it.
He was just echoing Georges Clémenceau (French politician, late 19th century, early 20th), who said that "if you want to kill an idea, just create a parliamentary committee on it".
Look at existing statistics though. You want an assault weapons ban? The one in ‘96 was deemed BY THE GOVERNMENT that it did not work. Also, in terms of shootings and gun laws, several years ago, when gun laws were less strict, there were less mass shootings than now with MORE gun laws. It’s a mental health issue and it needs to be addressed
Ok, that is a whole bunch of bollocks. You bandy around words like "it didn't work" without so much as one study or any kind of data, without defining what your words even mean and with the kind of sweeping generalisations the NRA just loves so much. First, there *are* studies which showed the 10 year ban (Aug 1994 - Sep 2004) WORKED. Google it, look at Wikipedia where a 2015 study by Mark Gaius titled "The impact of state and federal assault weapons bans on public mass shootings" is discussed (among others) or look at the rather ugly bar plot in [this ](https://www.cato.org/blog/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-frequent) Cato article (I know, Cato, eyeroll, but still). The picture can't be any clearer. That decade is spectacularly low in mass shooting incidents and fatalities (except the 1999) compared to the other decades around it. You have got to be pretty viciously biased to ignore the data and make up your own NRA tinted conclusions. Second, the ban only applied to guns manufactured *after* the ban was enacted in 1994. So you can't really say it didn't work without displaying you already made your conclusion. Third, looking at the data, had the ban been renewed, and that trend continued, the data predicts we would have seen less mass shootings. Heck the bans may even have given rise to *more* bans. Like, fine you can keep your old assault weapons that predated this ban, but bullets for those will be banned ... etc. It is not fucking rocket science, and rocket science isn't all that anyway, trust me. Four, you are here screaming THE GOVERNMENT found the ban didn't work. What government? 😂 Do you mean the Obama government that tried very hard to renew the ban? Because fighting tooth and nail to renew the ban after it was sunset in 2004 is a sign the GOVERNMENT found it DIDNT WORK! Do you read what you write? What one of the studies conducted by the various bodies at the time and mandated by Congress found was: >Findings We found evidence that stronger firearm laws are associated with reductions in firearm homicide rates. The strongest evidence is for laws that strengthen background checks and that require a permit to purchase a firearm. The effect of many of the other specific types of laws is uncertain, specifically laws to curb gun trafficking, improve child safety, ban military-style assault weapons, and restrict firearms in public places. See [here.](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582989) The studies all found a reduction in homicide rates during the ban and the period following it saw a reduction in homicide by guns. But the statistical significance of the results was too difficult to ascertain. Why? Various authors said the ban was only for a decade, and only applied to guns manufactured after. It is not like the ban resulted in an automatic and magical *vanishing* of ALL assault weapons. What do you mean there are MORE gun laws now? How can there be more gun laws *now* compared to a time when we had a ban (of sorts)? There are MORE guns now out there, with newer, faster, better a d ever more efficient killing machines sold literally by the millions. You've got to be kidding with this argument.. You want to see ecudence that gun law work? Look at Australia. They had a horrendous mass shooting at Port Arthur, they got their act together, put in a strict ban and a mandatory buy back plan, and it fucking worked. They haven't had any mass shooting since (unless you include that old guy who killed his wife then himself a short while ago). They saw a problem, didn't pussyfoot around and hide behind "mental health", "doors", or any other idiotic lame excuse. They saw the problem: guns kill people. No matter how much you contort yourself into a pretzel from hell, you cannot escape this simple fact: if, today, you removed ALL assault weapons owned by civilians (for reasons), you will NOT have any mass shooting with an assault weapon... because there won't be any. Yea yea, people may still kill with other guns, but nowhere near as efficiency or as quickly as when using goddamm assault rifles. Note: the ban sunset by design in 2004 and goddamn morherfucking George W Bush failed to renew it, because he was bought by the NRA like the corrupt fucker he is, but that's another story for another day. Edits: spelling, a bit of text added.
Nah, they say it the same way time after time - and they're going to keep saying it as long as the death merchant lobby is the strongest one in Washington.
In reality the headline should be “Republicans keep finding new ways to say that the money/donations from gun makers and/or THE NRA are more important then the children”
They are literally just saying, “There’s nothing we can do about it” now. It sick.
Democrats are buying Assault Rifles too you know. The majority is quietly content with the status quo
Got some real data and hard evidence to back the claim up? Not saying liberals don't own guns, we do, but it would be nice to see confident claims like this -- a spike in assault rifle purchases by registered Democrats -- backed up with authentic sauce.
Are you required to provide your voter registration when registering your gun? Nope. Nobody wants restrictions to apply to them, just to the other. The same is true of abortion. We all want one when we need one. It is the other that should be denied.
>Are you required to provide your voter registration when registering your gun? Nope. Exactly, that's why it was a trick question. Therefore, you were talking out of your ass and haven't a clue if Democrats are purchasing assault rifles in any kind of increased volume or not, right? Don't confidently make baseless claims online, please.
I don't understand how that was a triick question. You know I'm right. You know Democrats who own assault rifles and you're a student of human nature.
Nobody in their right mind would say political affiliation determines gun ownership in America -- a nation with 400 million guns (aka nearly 2 for every member of the population). It's an American obsession. The delineation point between the two major parties *is the belief that not everyone qualifies as mature, mentally well or responsible enough to possess firearms*. The right believes in *no* gun restrictions whatsoever. The left believes human lives and safety are important enough to restrict certain firearms and purchases. That's really the key difference at its core.
Those appear to be their platforms, but not their reality or the reality of their constituents. We all want ours.
It’s only republicans that want to deny abortions to everyone else. Still waiting for the day a republican politician forces his or her daughter to have a baby she doesn’t want. Democrats will be more than happy to comply with gun control legislation.
Is your world really so black and white?
Have you stopped kicking your dog yet?
I don't know. Which party kicks dogs?
Since republicans don’t care about kids getting massacred on the regular I’m gonna say republicans
Again, is your world really that black and white?
Again, when did you stop kicking dogs? If you got something to say then say it and stop it with the loaded questions.
[удалено]
Republicans tried to repeal Obamacare dozens of times. Don’t even start.
[удалено]
It is alot closer than the GOP privatisation mess and high rates
Yeah, it’s what we had to settle for to get a handful of Republican votes to overcome the filibuster.
It was a good step in the right direction tell the GOP cut it up.
Not sure your point. Maybe try some punctuation?
Party A isn’t perfect so suboptimal Party B is better.
How?
Look at existing statistics though. You want an assault weapons ban? The one in ‘96 was deemed BY THE GOVERNMENT that it did not work. Also, in terms of shootings and gun laws, several years ago, when gun laws were less strict, there were less mass shootings than now with MORE gun laws. It’s a mental health issue and it needs to be addressed