Will the Epidemic of Gun violence and Mass Murder break the back of the Republican Party in 2020 ?

Will the Epidemic of Gun violence and Mass Murder break the back of the Republican Party in 2020 ?

No;

In the lead up to the 2018 elections the news media and liberal politicians tried to sensationalize and tie the Republican party to Gun (and mail bomb) violence.... Liberals predicted it would break the back of the Republican Party in 2018.... It didn't; the often claimed blue wave never occurred.

In the lead up to the 2016 elections the news media and liberal politicians tried to sensationalize and tie the Republican party to Gun violence.... Liberals predicted it would break the back of the Republican Party in 2016.... It didn't; Donald Trump defeated the undefeatable Hillary Clinton.

I could keep going; but what would be the point.

The Democrats need a new playbook; for example they could try to put forth pragmatic real world solutions that live up to their ideals... they would gain at lest one more voter (me). I guess they are afraid they will also lose to many lemmings.

a reply to: Nickn3

The amendment was added to protect the country back when foreign invaders threatened our shores.
Real invaders not people seeking asylum.
Its not really necessary any more and has nothing to do with conversations. Bloviated defense statement.

a reply to: DanDanDat

And at the same time trump tried to convince people that caravans of invaders were headed for our southern border.
Sensationalized bull schitte.
And it backfired on him in the midterms when the republicans had the biggest loss ever.

a reply to: DanDanDat

. It didn't; the often claimed blue wave never occurred.

Yeah and Russia didn't interfere with our election either.

Rolls eyes.

Like trump you believe if you proclaim something it automatically makes it true.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Nickn3

The amendment was added to protect the country back when foreign invaders threatened our shores.
.

The amendment was added to protect the people from a tyrannical government... it was written by people who had just fought off a tyrannical government.

Revisionist history doesn't help your argument.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DanDanDat

. It didn't; the often claimed blue wave never occurred.

Yeah and Russia didn't interfere with our election either.

Rolls eyes.

Like trump you believe if you proclaim something it automatically makes it true.

This is how Russia influenced the election; from a joint study on the subject regarding the 2016 election by Princeton University and Dartmouth College (ie not conservative)

Specifically, we find that approximately one in four Americans visited a fake news website, but that consumption was disproportionately observed among Trump supporters for whom its largely pro-Trump content was attitude-consistent. However, this pattern of selective exposure was heavily concentrated among a small subset of people — almost six in ten visits to fake news websites came from the 10% of Americans with the most conservative information diets. Finally, we specifically identify Facebook as the most important mechanism facilitating the spread of fake news and show that fact-checking largely failed to e↵ectively reach consumers of fake news.

www.dartmouth.edu...

It would seem that "a small subset of mostly conservative information seekers" where influenced into voting for the person they would have voted for anyway regardless of Russian interference.


But i do agree with you "proclaim something it automatically makes it true" ... at least in your mind it would seem.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: surfer_soul

Yes I have an agenda in this case. Its called saving lives.
And trying to blame this issue on mental illness is the cop out of the moment on the right to protect gun rights.
You cannot deny it and still exist in the real world. That is insanity.

Saving lives, huh ?
What are you doing about cell phones ?
11 teenagers a day die from texting and driving. That's a school shooting Every Day
Should the we raise the age limit on owning cell phones ? Ban them for teenagers ?
Why not ?

You're not trying to " save lives " you're just pushing an agenda.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: DanDanDat

And at the same time trump tried to convince people that caravans of invaders were headed for our southern border.
Sensationalized bull schitte.
And it backfired on him in the midterms when the republicans had the biggest loss ever.

Yes Conservatives and Trump try to sensationalize issues too.... your overly defensive position has brought you to a place where you believe that all people are "ether with you or against you" ... an attitude i am guessing you vehemently disagreed with before we went to war in Iraq. Its funny how in only a few years so many people have come to agree with that sentiment when once they ridiculed it.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
Another traitor to the country & constitution - your IP has been logged. Thanks for making your views public.

What does "Shall not be infringed" mean. Is it really so hard to understand?

Keep pushing the red flag laws as well, and other impediments to unalienable rights.

Wow, lol.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Nickn3

The amendment was added to protect the country back when foreign invaders threatened our shores.
Real invaders not people seeking asylum.
Its not really necessary any more and has nothing to do with conversations. Bloviated defense statement.

SECOND AMENDMENT ADDED

NO, NO, NO - It was not added! IT IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT, comes right after the First.

- It is one of the building blocks and foundations of the REpublc of the United States.

And let me remind you all again - I started this post not with the intention of destroying the Second Amendment,
- I started this post to defend the Second Amendment from the anit-gun nuts; because you see if we keep allowing
lunatics to get their hands on high capacity guns [we already restricted machine guns many years ago], the Liberal
anti-gun crowd will energize the more extreme members of the left to gut the Constitution and destroy the
Second Ammendment - Wake up and smell the gun powder, there is just too much of it in the air

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: surfer_soul

You say you don’t believe in evil or that these people aren’t mentally ill.

I did my best to avoid saying either of those things.
What I said is that blaming mass killings on mental illness is a red herring.

This is ridiculous. A lack of empathy is mental illness. The people are mentally ill who do this.

Now the reason would be the massive feeling of isolation and lack of time Americans have in families or in private life. This begins during the latchkey era...

Hatred sure doesn't help and Republicans and Democrats are at fault for their divisive demagoguery driving the public.

But hate is a stress and stress makes mental illness surface like say drug use...stressed out lonely kids is the problem. Look at the suicide rate. Worst ever in recorded history for teens

a reply to: AlienView

I have had enough of people like you. Most of the people in my little town owns guns, are known as people that like to hunt. Only killings that happen here are normally committed by black people or drugys. Youvaint taking my guns until I'm dead. But I am a constitutionalists. I would never willingly give up any of my rights.

a reply to: AlienView

Quick answer: NO

a reply to: cognizant420

The constitution does allow for local gun laws under public safety and even conservatives on the court have ruled this.

Republicans only care about being re elected this is why you are seeing them cave and many including the president are willing to pass gun control measures. They are loosing the suburbs who are the most proactive voters.

Will be interesting to see if they abandon the base or the suburbs....wither way it's a tough spot for the president...especially if the economy takes a dump....then even a clown could beat him. In which case the Democrats will probably use emergency actions since president trump has taken more authority for the executive office by declaring emergencies to bipass congress like he did with selling arms to the saudis....

While you folks were "owning libs" you forgot to keep track of your own.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Why does the US keep and maintain a standing army? Why does each state? Both are absolutely forbidden to do so by the Constitution. Heck you can even serve in the Coast Guard in Tennessee, which is nowhere near the ocean. Same with Arizona, which is a desert, but is part of the US Border.

The Second is there to allow the people (which is the fourth branch of government and where ultimate power resides) to suppress invasions, stop riots and insurrections and if need be, overthrow/remove a government that has become tyrannical or unresponsive to the people.

Which means if the will of the people was to end sanctuary cities as an example. The second allows for the people to remove that city government by force of arms if necessary, if petitions or other avenues of appeals are ignored. Furthermore an armed response to clash or interfere with the removers could later be deemed an act of treason. Such is the power that resides within the people.

I guess my question to those truly wanting to repeal the Second, are you willing to take up arms to force your point to an unresponsive government, thus using the Second to remove the Second which makes your point rather moot because it would in fact show that the Second works as intended?

Case in point, look at the groups that went to the Southern Border, armed to enforce the sovereignty of the people over illegal entrance to the country.

a reply to: Ahabstar

The second working the way you describe is doubtful...because of exploitation things like mercenaries who shade the laws and by the intel communities vast bag of psychological tricks and infiltration skills.

I support the second with the ability of local government to make public safety laws around guns. Texas has a ccl because they have huge cities and most people are too lazy to take the easy course. Vermont with no cities really has no carry laws. Nobody has complained about local laws.

Federal laws I strongly oppose mainly because there is a way specifically to amend the constitution it was made for a reason.

Now let's get to 2nd amendment perversion in American history. There have been several points when people have exploited the 2nd amendment and it would be foolish to not pay attention to and have good debate about mitigation effort.

The most outrageous perversions were around the turn of the century during reconstruction and the industrial revolution where many twisted versions of "rough riders" (hell even teddy was a bit of a nut in that regard) but the most outrageous where the private militias early corporations amassed before trust busting. We then had the clan, the mafia, cartels, gangs etc...


Strict gun laws should start with declaring an illegal gun..what is that and why?

Where we agree as a society is the start...crimes with guns mean the person had an illegal gun. That has to be punished severely. Getting caught with a gun against your towns public safety laws (Chicago) should be an illegal gun..

What is the point of making a gun illegal I'm Chicago if you don't have a plan to target illegal guns? If you pass the law you better have warrants and stings ready. By creating a ccl you can justify this by allowing a permitting situation for your firearm.

Again this has to be local law. And imo should not be able to have federal pressure but I think its debatable about the pressure only.

a reply to: luthier

Dont matter how you look at it our government is corrupt. I havent been properly represented for as long as I can remember.

originally posted by: DAVID64
This " ban high capacity mags" thing again ?
Even an amateur shooter, with a bit of practice, can change and fire 3 /10 round mags as fast as firing 30 rounds from 2 / 15 round mags. Infringing on Rights is NEVER the solution.

People don't understand. Do they think that a enraged person wanting to do a mass murder will just stop because large capacity "Assault Rifles" are banned and not available?

They will adapt and find a gun or surprise, GUNS that will get the job done. In the video they shot a WW1 handgun 21 shots with 3 reloads in 10 secs and he hit center of mass with all of them. People intent on murdering lots of people will either train on reloading or just have 4 or more handguns with them.

What kind of enhanced background check is going to stop any of these killers? Most had ZERO issues purchasing their guns with current background checks.

Even if we had enhanced background checks and banned large capacity Assault Rifles, it won't stop these kind of killers, they will find guns to do the job.

What happens when these measures are implemented and it still doesn't stop the next
mass murder? Look at some of the terror attacks in Europe, they adapted to what was available to them. There is no magic wand that will solve this problem when we have friends and families who look the other way as these killers descend into their madness.

In short, go ahead and ban assault rifles and large capacity storage and do enhanced background checks........it's not going to stop the next shooter.
Anyone want to bet me? They aren't going to stop because the preferred weapon isn't there.

Extremists will find a way to achieve their goals.

a reply to: pavil

Gun laws will do very little for mass shootings.

However if you make illegal gun ownership on the local level an issue (by also allowing permitting for the gun) you can probably justify some gang raids and actually help clean up crime areas..you would of coarse need due process.

But mass shootings flows the suicide rate. Lots of despair in our society and extwncial crisis from a fast changing world.