Jump to content

California mass Shooting


Jotari
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, Tryhard said:

props for effort

thanks. and also @eclipse: :D

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

If you lean towards gun control:

What kinds of guns specifically do you feel we should ban? What regulations do we need?

Would you agree there are parts of the nation that need guns to live more or better?

How would you propose implementing bans on guns that have been commercially available for years?

How long do you believe gun reform will actually take?

Do you believe the media posting manifestos and pictures of the gunmen (in other words, ideology) is more of a motivating factor than guns?

 

i mostly agree with shob but anyway:

1. the good ol AR-15! get that shit out of here! it's too efficient and reliable. there was so infographic that i saw on fb that noted many of our mass shootings are done using that rifle. that may not be true, and i would accept being wrong, but as it stands right now i want that gun out of civilian hands unless it's being used on a gun

2. nope. it doesn't make sense in any context.

3. ban them and advertise later. make people hate guns the way we do with tobacco.

4. at least a decade.

5. i think there's good evidence to suggest that we shouldn't be giving these gunmen the light of day.

22 minutes ago, Johann said:

I'm surprised that this troll isn't just straight up banned

i feel like he should be banned from responding here tbh. or put this tangent in another topic. i got a sense of humor and all, but i'd like to honor these deceased and broken people with at least a mildly honest discussion.

Edited by Phoenix Wright
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:

2. nope. it doesn't make sense in any context.

Based on talking to people that live out in the country -- the particular state that I've heard mentioned by name is Maine -- many times civilization is like 20 miles out from where you are. It's not as easy to rely on law enforcement for guns and you also need it for self-defense against wild animals.

That's the perspective I've heard on this, in which case I would pretty much agree with the bit on having a license to operate certain firearms. This being one of those cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Based on talking to people that live out in the country -- the particular state that I've heard mentioned by name is Maine -- many times civilization is like 20 miles out from where you are. It's not as easy to rely on law enforcement for guns and you also need it for self-defense against wild animals.

That's the perspective I've heard on this, in which case I would pretty much agree with the bit on having a license to operate certain firearms. This being one of those cases.

i'm a city boy and never imagined this. good point!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DarthR0xas said:

That is easily disproven. First, taken out of context that is false because some could die of natural causes. Back into context, plenty of blacks were shot, or beat for no reason even when they were complying with the officers. https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/3/21/17149092/stephon-clark-police-shooting-sacramento is the first one I grabbed from a quick Google search.

https://www.rt.com/usa/443803-black-security-guard-killed-by-cops/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/us/police-officer-shoots-security-guard-chicago.html

This was yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just going to throw my two cents in here.

There's a very very fine line that needs to be walked. In terms of gun control.... it's hard to say. I lean less toward regulating specific types of guns and more toward extensive testing of mental health to ensure that the individual buying the gun isn't... uhm, crazy (for lack of a better word), and also that they'll use and store it responsibly. As it is you're already limited on how much ammo you can buy over a certain time period (I forget exactly what that time period is) and normal citizens cannot buy automatic guns. ARs are no more powerful than a standard rifle, are not automatic (outside of military use), and even use the same size ammo, they just look scarier than your average rifle. You have to take a class and get a license and go through a pretty extensive background check AND be at least 21 before you can have a concealed carry firearm.

In all honesty I don't think there's any way to determine with 100% accuracy what America's problem is... I will say this, I find reason to doubt that America alone has this problem (Remember that people used to say that serial killers were only American and not anywhere else), but I think the horrid stigma towards mental health is a genuine issue in this equation. And no, I don't think mass media is helping this cause, as all it's doing is causing a huge decline in empathy toward other humans. I can't even begin to describe how many people my age have no empathy toward other people. If they get hurt it's no big deal, so many people today are, quite frankly, narcissistic.

I will also point out that I live in the country where wild animals are a legitimate concern and I promise you that throwing a rock at them will only make them angry. And no, a tiny little handgun will not take down a fully grown bear. If you're facing a bear with a handgun you'd better hope you have a lot of ammo and a way to reload FAST.

Anyway, sorry for the ramble, just sharing my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, hanhnn said:

So much for the "good guy with a gun" argument, or did we forget an implication that meant to specifically suggest a "good WHITE guy with a gun" somewhere along the lines?

16 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

In all honesty I don't think there's any way to determine with 100% accuracy what America's problem is... 

Maybe not but the fact is that we are in a Democracy and have a constitution that can be amended to change established laws if needed. There's been more than enough time to experiment with what happens when you do nothing about these mass shootings. It's about time to experiment and see what happens when you implement gun control laws with the intent to reduce these occurrences. Anti-Gun control folks provide no real evidence for their arguments, they just obstruct and cry 2nd Amendment and they've had their way for decades while there's more evidence supporting that gun control can reduce the number of mass shootings occurring. It's time for that to change but I guess we'll have to wait for the current administration to sink.

If the elected lawmakers have no desire to act on this when many folks in the country want common sense gun control legislation to happen, then there's no need to pity them when lunatics come to shoot those that do nothing.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Maybe not but the fact is that we are in a Democracy and have a constitution that can be amended to change established laws if needed. There's been more than enough time to experiment with what happens when you do nothing about these mass shootings. It's about time to experiment and see what happens. Anti-Gun control folks provide no real evidence for their arguments, they just obstruct and cry 2nd Amendment and they've had their way for decades. It's time for that to change but I guess we'll have to wait for the current administration to sink.

I keep seeing this thrown around and it BUGS me, so https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q76.html no America is NOT a democracy. At least not in the true sense of the word. As for the rest of your opinion... what more than the current 200 gun laws would you recommend? (By the way, 200 is a conservative estimate that doesn't include local gun laws as those are so widely varied). And I mean that honestly, what other laws would you recommend? Because you have to understand, many people on the other side of the issue than you feel that attitude to be combative and unhelpful and it puts people on either side on the defensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

I keep seeing this thrown around and it BUGS me, so https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q76.html no America is NOT a democracy.

Quote

The "republic" implies that we have a strong head of state (the President) and elected officials representing the people.

There's no such thing when our elected officials are bought out by the rich. I'm not going to argue semantics here, the point is that we have representatives elected to work to make legislation that the people who voted for them want enacted and a majority of the country want stronger gun control than what's in place.

25 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

what more than the current 200 gun laws would you recommend? (By the way, 200 is a conservative estimate that doesn't include local gun laws as those are so widely varied). And I mean that honestly, what other laws would you recommend? 

Shoblongoo had some nice suggestions to go with:

4 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I've outlined this in other threads, but I'll say it again here just to put a concrete proposal on the table and see if we can get some meeting-of-the-minds on common ground here.

Don't ban guns. Treat them like cars.

  • License needed to own and operate.
  • Training Course + Field Test + medical fitness evaluation needed to get a license
  • All guns must be marked with an identification number + registered with their owner
  • All changes of ownership must be logged, recorded, and reported to public records
  • Unlawful sales, unlicensed operations, and unsafe operations shall be punishable by degree of severity with fines, criminal penalties, and/or loss of license.

    Acceptable? Unacceptable? 

That last one that I bolded is important because in several states, it isn't implemented well and there's loopholes in the laws that need to be addressed. As I've mentioned earlier:

 

On 11/9/2018 at 3:29 PM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Yes, the Retro Studios that made Metroid Prime and the newer Donkey Kong Country games. I've looked into it and I could pick up an assault rifle and ammunition for it with as little as $300. If I wanted to, it wouldn't be difficult for me to kill multiple folks at Retro Studios.

That coupled with a loophole that allows you to buy guns without a background check in Texas (I'm serious, look it up), the wording of the "stand your ground" and the current gun laws in general, there are states where it's easily possible to commit mass murder with guns or even manipulate the situation into killing individuals LEGALLY.

I get the intent of the 2nd amendment, but getting a gun in the first place needs to be made way more difficult at the very least.

 

25 minutes ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Because you have to understand, many people on the other side of the issue than you feel that attitude to be combative and unhelpful and it puts people on either side on the defensive.

Generally speaking, they're immediately defensive no matter what you do, in their mind, they see the mere mention of "gun control" as "REPEAL THE 2ND AMENDMENT, BAN ALL GUNS" because that's what Propaganda from the likes of the NRA and Fox News has lead to. As already said, they just obstruct and cry 2nd Amendment, offering no real points or solutions to mass shootings. Those that cry "more guns" should be the first to be surrounded by more guns and see how they it works out. For example, if the Orange Turd wants to suggest more guns as a solution to this, then he should be highly opposed to increased security at NRA convention speeches by him and Mike Pence. Instead, they see lives of American citizens as expendable when in reality their lives are worth much less. If Trump were to be executed, I wouldn't be opposed to that execution happening by him being burned alive, he's earned it.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

I will say this, I find reason to doubt that America alone has this problem (Remember that people used to say that serial killers were only American and not anywhere else)

This is because serial killers can remain ‘hidden’ if their killings aren’t ever connected by law enforcement or a nosy reporter.

But how would you disguise mass shootings in other countries? Are you really proposing that whole countries are hiding mass shootings happening within their boundaries from the rest of the world?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

If you lean towards gun control:

What kinds of guns specifically do you feel we should ban? What regulations do we need?

Would you agree there are parts of the nation that need guns to live more or better?

How would you propose implementing bans on guns that have been commercially available for years?

How long do you believe gun reform will actually take?

Do you believe the media posting manifestos and pictures of the gunmen (in other words, ideology) is more of a motivating factor than guns?

 

If you lean against gun control:

How much gun regulation do you actually believe there should be? If so, can you name specifics?

If guns are used for self defense and more should arm themselves, do you believe the government should take initiative? What prevents this from making a "Mexican standoff" society so to speak? Where everyone is paranoid because everyone has a gun -- is such an anxious society desirable? If not, then what do you propose we do about this?

What do you think of the argument that we need guns to form a militia against a tyrannical government?

How much would a gun buyback program have to give you in order for you to relinquish rifles?

What do you think of the mental illness argument? In what ways should mental illness be addressed to prevent shootings? Which mental illnesses are targeted? What mental illness did the Vegas shooter have?

 

I think based on my questions asked it's clear where I lean, but anyone's free to answer. I'm not really expecting anything specific, I'm just gonna take whatever answers in good faith.

I'm gonna answer both because I'm heavily conflicted:

  • Restrict magazine size to 15 rounds
  • If I lived in places where large wild animals exist, take a gun
  • Force a recall on the manufacturer, hope people send in their guns to be modded to follow the law
  • Decades, if not longer
  • Yes

Here's the against

  • Probably enough that most unofficial mods should be outlawed, and that official ones can't improve fire rate.
  • I don't think this is an easy question to answer, purely because it's a theoretical. 
  • I would support it if the militiamen were properly vetted for being able to safely handle the weapons
  • Several times more than the guns are monetarily worth.
  • I would support more research into it, certainly.
4 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I've outlined this in other threads, but I'll say it again here just to put a concrete proposal on the table and see if we can get some meeting-of-the-minds on common ground here.

Don't ban guns. Treat them like cars.

  • License needed to own and operate.
  • Training Course + Field Test + medical fitness evaluation needed to get a license
  • All guns must be marked with an identification number + registered with their owner
  • All changes of ownership must be logged, recorded, and reported to public records
  • Unlawful sales, unlicensed operations, and unsafe operations shall be punishable by degree of severity with fines, criminal penalties, and/or loss of license.

    Acceptable? Unacceptable? 

I'm gonna say almost everything is fine except public records and the registry, because those are illegal under the current laws, and actually do go down a slippery slope when implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Res said:

But how would you disguise mass shootings in other countries? Are you really proposing that whole countries are hiding mass shootings happening within their boundaries from the rest of the world?

Technically speaking, it's not out of the realm of possibility for such a thing to happen. The problem is that unless you've got credible evidence to back it up, there's absolutely no point in making that argument because it would just be another dumb conspiracy theory.

The statements that mass shootings are so common in America comes from statistics of mass shootings compiled from several countries and the correlation between number of guns owned and mass shootings always comes up in conversation because we are in fact, a country where it's incredibly easy.

For those that wanna argue that those statistics are faked by the governments of other countries... where's the evidence? Where's the reports from journalists that such a thing is happening? When confronted with such questions, you'll usually get "Whataboutisms" from such folks which does nothing useful for the discussion other than obstruct it.

EDIT: One very good point that's been brought up in this thread:

2 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Based on talking to people that live out in the country -- the particular state that I've heard mentioned by name is Maine -- many times civilization is like 20 miles out from where you are. It's not as easy to rely on law enforcement for guns and you also need it for self-defense against wild animals.

That's the perspective I've heard on this, in which case I would pretty much agree with the bit on having a license to operate certain firearms. This being one of those cases.

This is a fantastic point for people skeptical about gun control to use and I never see it tossed around. I live in Austin Texas where law enforcement assistance isn't difficult to get but I'm not one to deny that there's areas like this in other counties in Texas that should have this taken into consideration.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I've outlined this in other threads, but I'll say it again here just to put a concrete proposal on the table and see if we can get some meeting-of-the-minds on common ground here.

Don't ban guns. Treat them like cars.

  • License needed to own and operate.
  • Training Course + Field Test + medical fitness evaluation needed to get a license
  • All guns must be marked with an identification number + registered with their owner
  • All changes of ownership must be logged, recorded, and reported to public records
  • Unlawful sales, unlicensed operations, and unsafe operations shall be punishable by degree of severity with fines, criminal penalties, and/or loss of license.

    Acceptable? Unacceptable? 

I'd say you forgot more than intentionally excluded, because it's pretty obvious, perform extensive background checks and refuse licences to people who are deemed mentally unfit to own a gun or who have had a criminal conviction in the past ~three decades.

2 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

I keep seeing this thrown around and it BUGS me, so https://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q76.html no America is NOT a democracy. At least not in the true sense of the word. As for the rest of your opinion... what more than the current 200 gun laws would you recommend? (By the way, 200 is a conservative estimate that doesn't include local gun laws as those are so widely varied). And I mean that honestly, what other laws would you recommend? Because you have to understand, many people on the other side of the issue than you feel that attitude to be combative and unhelpful and it puts people on either side on the defensive.

America is a representative democracy, like almost every other nation on the planet (allegedly). Representative democracy is a form of democracy, when you say America isn't a democracy, you're probably talking about what we call Absolute Democracy, which to my knowledge no country in the world actually is. Switzerland is the country that probably comes the closest. Saying America isn't a democracy is like saying Ike isn't a human because he's a beorc.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I'd say you forgot more than intentionally excluded, because it's pretty obvious, perform extensive background checks and refuse licences to people who are deemed mentally unfit to own a gun or who have had a criminal conviction in the past ~three decades.

I think it would depend on the type of criminal conviction.  Running a stop sign and forgetting to show up to court is a far different crime than beating someone up.  The latter, IMO, should never be eligible for a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eclipse said:

I think it would depend on the type of criminal conviction.  Running a stop sign and forgetting to show up to court is a far different crime than beating someone up.  The latter, IMO, should never be eligible for a gun.

Yes, of course. I should have said violent or serious crimes. And while I would feel uneasy about someone with a violent past being able to buy a gun, I don't like the idea of someone's rights being restricted in perpetuity. Should a ninety year old be punished for something they did as a twenty year old? Life sentences are of course a thing, but even they offer parole in almost all cases. I think a restriction of several decades (starting from release from prison) would be appropriate for actually restricting dangerous people, while simultaneously giving an out to satisfy a philosophical view point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Yes, of course. I should have said violent or serious crimes. And while I would feel uneasy about someone with a violent past being able to buy a gun, I don't like the idea of someone's rights being restricted in perpetuity. Should a ninety year old be punished for something they did as a twenty year old? Life sentences are of course a thing, but even they offer parole in almost all cases. I think a restriction of several decades (starting from release from prison) would be appropriate for actually restricting dangerous people, while simultaneously giving an out to satisfy a philosophical view point.

If your empathy is far gone to the point where you're assaulting someone (self-defense nonwithstanding), then I'm for a permanent gun restriction.  IIRC, domestic abusers currently can't get a gun for this reason (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

I've outlined this in other threads, but I'll say it again here just to put a concrete proposal on the table and see if we can get some meeting-of-the-minds on common ground here.

Don't ban guns. Treat them like cars.

  • License needed to own and operate.
  • Training Course + Field Test + medical fitness evaluation needed to get a license
  • All guns must be marked with an identification number + registered with their owner
  • All changes of ownership must be logged, recorded, and reported to public records
  • Unlawful sales, unlicensed operations, and unsafe operations shall be punishable by degree of severity with fines, criminal penalties, and/or loss of license.

    Acceptable? Unacceptable? 

I do agree with the idea. Without driver licenses, there'd be much more car crashes, so I'm thinking the same thing with guns by that idea in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

If your empathy is far gone to the point where you're assaulting someone (self-defense nonwithstanding), then I'm for a permanent gun restriction.  IIRC, domestic abusers currently can't get a gun for this reason (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

I don't disagree with you fundamentally. I just think the opportunity for redemption should be legally present no matter the circumstances, even if it realistically can't be happen with in the timeframe of a human life time. Bit silly, I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eclipse said:

If your empathy is far gone to the point where you're assaulting someone (self-defense nonwithstanding), then I'm for a permanent gun restriction.  IIRC, domestic abusers currently can't get a gun for this reason (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

On paper, they're not supposed to but it seems like plenty of them have been able to circumvent the issue. And then there's the aforementioned loophole of buying guns without background checks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2018 at 5:34 PM, eclipse said:

Enough with this reactionary nonsense.

Either say your piece, or get out.  And I don't care which option you choose.

What do you even mean? What part of what I said was reactionary and not just a response? You literally added nothing to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/14/2018 at 3:37 PM, Sunsurge said:

What do you even mean? What part of what I said was reactionary and not just a response? You literally added nothing to that.

Let's take a look at your responses:

On 11/8/2018 at 6:37 AM, Sunsurge said:

I don't think mental health is the issue in these cases, let's think about that for a moment. Mentally ill people are usually not the ones picking up guns and doing mass shootings.

 

On 11/8/2018 at 7:08 AM, Sunsurge said:

That's exactly the issue. We immediately want to absolve blame by saying they were "bullied" or "social outcasts". But there are in actuality very few people who have NOT been bullied to some degree growing up. And a lot of school shooters can be described as shy, but not necessarily social outcasts.

Go down the list of school shooters. The two at Columbine were described as "bullies" but it was later revealed one had a good friend circle and the other had just taken a date to prom. Neither were even close to the social outcasts they were originally portrayed as.

Look at Cruz, who was known to be very aggressive himself and picked fights. Was he "bullied" or was he actually doing the bullying and getting bullied in return.

It's been proven time and time again, the initial media reports and 'profiling' on school shooters are wholly reactionary and not really painting a full picture. Some are social outcasts, because they were known to already be sadistic and violent. So no, I don't think you can say that without having done a bit more research on the social and psychological profiles of these shooters, a lot of which isn't covered unless you dig a bit deeper.

How about the school shooter who shot up a class because he was turned down by a girl? Where is the bullying in that? 

Abuse is the only thing that has a certified effect on violence on this scale. 

 

On 11/9/2018 at 12:10 PM, Sunsurge said:

Yes, I'm sure being treated for PTSD would have totally cleared him and made him a great person in society. -_- What made this preventable would have been gun control laws and more thorough examinations. 

I agree mental healthcare needs to be taken seriously, but focusing on that completely ignores the fact he was allowed to get a gun in the first place. AND it also ignores the many mass shooters who don't show any signs of mental health issues. So we can pick apart each individual shooter as it happens, but the overlying issue is gun control. Not mental health.

Every single post is about mental health issues, and every single post is in response to someone else.  And none pertain to the topic, which is the California shooting (yes, it wandered off, but it was just fine when you posted).  So, it's clear you have a stance - either spit it out directly, or keep it to yourself.  I don't care which one you choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm right, but is that so shocking? Sweden has stringent gun laws. Crime, especially from Muslim individuals, increased.

Yeah, totally the tools fault, not the ideology nor the person. A cursory google search will corroborate my responses. If you believe guns ARE the problem...I pity you, just like white people acting towards people of "color". Sociology is a fun course. We want, as in white people, want to be seen as nice. That's why we have white people who want to "limit" guns. Black people, Middle Eastern people, etc, in white majority countries, want to be respected. Now hold on, respect is earned. Not given. You don't deserve respect just because we exist.

To want to help people of "color" means, deep down, you see them less than your in group. AKA white supremacy. What has this to do with anything? Not much, but it's important, regardless.

The point? Less Guns+less mental health support+they vs them identity politics=more crime across all groups. Hilarious, then, when more violent acts of crime occur in urban populations, because of a multitier toxic hate ideology wants to be hateful assholes because they lost the American Civil War, under the guise of "inclusion and diversity"...Oh yes, the blue, racist party who can't get over slavery ending, who lie to people of "color" that the other side will murder the shit outta them, thus the only safe place is with them...Party of "tolerance", my ass, yes? To what end, you ask? Glad you asked, human person. Simple, to weaponize ethnic minorities, and children (not the point), against the side that ended slavery. I wholeheartedly denounce their moral superiority, en masse.

So, without further adieu, people and "progression" are to blame, not guns. And I know, I'm a racist and a xenophobe, and a transphobe...Except naw fam, that's empirical data, put in simple terms. Maybe next time, we can end "wage gap", "male oppression" and other feminist insane bullshit. Just maybe. Because you should know, the greatest of intention leads to mass suffering. "humanitarianism" isn't moral, don't @ me with your stupid ideas. Because I'm immune to anti-American bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for other peoples benefit:

america has 4-5x the homicide rate and higher general crime rates than most european countries, many of who either ban firearms completely or restrict them heavily. please talk more about how less guns equals more crime.

perhaps you'll be inclined to point out that it is not any one thing that may help, and you'd maybe be right - but mental health facilities and support are also fucking terrible in america. if nothing else, having more guns than citizens in the US has not done anything to help. this is something that even fox news polls are getting from conservatives about possible gun control alternatives:

37e3c1edc3.png

(the only inherently "conservative" position here is putting armed guards in schools)

you seem like you have a bad case of feelings over facts, actually. please continue to talk about race when no-one else was and then complain about us vs them identity politics. there is always proof that some people of every race are definitely not intelligent, and i'm seeing one here.

to all else: consider ideas when things are going wrong. the shootings in america are abnormal for a first world country. regular people are beginning more and more to see this and are considering ideas like the above as favorable even if they are staunchly conservative and pro gun ownership. remember that your politicians have done comparatively nothing.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have more homicide than every western nation? Oh, you pure, innocent child...who told you that? Same person who said "1 in 3 women will be raped in America"? Hoooooo boi, no wonder. We have beta cucks trying to destroy America as it should be outta spite because their ideas are fucking stupid. Just like feminism. Yet here we are, you vomit propaganda because educashun said so. No one I know does violent acts of crime, they're all white, again not the point, and own guns. Most, also, hold Judeo-Christian values. The correct values, mind you. Because not doing whatsoever you want is socially desired. If your belief is not, fundamentally, capable of integrating...then maybe you're the problem. Just maybe.

The fact you trust FOX is indicative of your dishonest, amoral regressive brainwashing is effective. It only takes 20 to 50 years to achieve this. Point is, guns aren't bad. The user is or isn't on a variety of factors. Fear mongering is insidious. Legacy Media, MainStream Media or MSM, like comrade Lemon, is trying to decide what's allowed to be thought. Not said, but THOUGHT. They want to disarm America so they can take over.

Sounds crazy? I wish I was making it up. To paraphrase a CNN anchor "it's not the democratically elected president who decides what truth is, oh no, that's OUR job." I kid you not, fake news, and commies, are trying to kill America. It's so Orwellian, any remaining real American would and should be rightly pissed. You're only thinking what they want you to. They want you to get rid of guns so we can't resist. Progress is a cancer, just like Social Justice and Feminism. Because ideologues, verifiable dangerous to American way of life people, don't like America. THey hold no fealty, swear no allegiance to it.We have less, actually, homicide than every other country in the developed and undeveloped world. All because 1A and 2a. Do change that, even if it makes people feel good, is destruction of America. It's already happening in Europe. Muslim people come into places with no guns? Muslim people break the in groups laws. En masse. Despite multiculturalism fails. Every. Sngle . Time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...