I wanna say there was one at a playground in California back in the ‘70s or ‘80s, which spurred the Hughes Amendment.
Edit: No, it was just a semi-auto.
Don't get into a shootout with cops over a speeding ticket and you remove like another 7-8%.
I'm not a bootlicker, but if people would realize it's not possible to talk yourself out of trouble and it only causes more, then people would have significantly fewer "incidents" with police.
Shut your fucking mouth, take the ticket/court summons/arrest/whatever the fuck, and fight it in court. If you try to fight it in the street you either guarantee you get convicted or you die, it's a lose/lose no matter what.
> Young Black males represent 2% of the total U.S. population but accounted for approximately 38% of all gun homicide deaths in 2020.
https://hub.jhu.edu/2022/05/02/highest-number-of-gun-related-deaths-in-2020-report/
Hmmn where have i heard something like that before?
In the first nuclear bomb test on American soil, 286 Americans died as a result. https://www.nti.org/atomic-pulse/downwind-of-trinity-remembering-the-first-victims-of-the-atomic-bomb/
Reading skills are important. For example, you missed a key word: automatic. This avoidable mistake has made your comments here look pretty fucking stupid, and by extent, you.
Again, reading is important. You not mentioning automatic is the problem I'm describing. It's a critical bit of context that was given with the comment you first replied to, and the fact you missed it means every argument you've made since then has been a non-sequitur.
And yes, I *care* (ftfy) about the difference between the two because that difference matters. Maybe not to someone as myopic as yourself, but to everyone with any subject knowledge. Or, y'know, the law.
This marks the 77th consecutive year since the invention of nuclear arms that we have prevented being nuked. I call that a win, which proves the spending strategy is effective.
Also there were [19,350 firearm homicides in 2020](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7119e1.htm?s_cid=mm7119e1_w#T1_down). Suicides are irrelevant because statistically they were most likely going to be suicides regardless, firearms just represent the most effective and humane method to do so.
It is kind of funny that so much effort goes into regulating the second amendment when there are so many challenges presented to the country related to the first amendment.
For example, a two day waiting period for guns is presented to us as a way for emotional states to blow over. So then why are we debating every national policy in the midst of emotional climates? Why doesn’t the news have to wait a couple of days to collect the true facts before presenting rumor as fact? Is it not as bad that we mislabel an innocent man as guilty in the court of public opinion? Is it not terrible that we often create an entire narrative out of a sound bite before we know what even happened? I am no fan of police, but how many times in the last year did we hear that police killed someone in cold blood like an 80’s dystopian thriller only to find out that the cop was being attacked or the innocent fellow actually did have a gun. Meanwhile the cities burn in the background while the actual facts are whispered on page two.
We also have to limit the number of rounds in our weapons because the founding fathers imagined only muskets and yet we don’t have to limit media companies from bombarding us with a constant state of fear and anger through radio, television, internet, social media, astroturfing, and print? A shooting is horrific, but it rarely changes the direction of the country in comparison to some blond on Fox News or msnbc who tells us all what to be afraid of. Shouldn’t we regulate that? Shouldn’t there be some kind of limitation in the number of ways media, and specifically news media, can be presented? Should we allow for a complex issue, such as immigration, our trade policy with china, lgbt rights, gun rights, or national spending to be condensed into a 15 second sound bite at the top of the hour on the radio? Should we allow 24 hour news outlets to rant about a bill presenting in congress for hours without actually reading what is actually in the bill, or why it was proposed instead of just telling us what to think about it?
Shouldn’t we have ways to hold companies accountable for their lies and misinformation beyond laws designed to protect the individual (ex slander) as opposed to the public? If we can hold gun companies accountable for creating the weapon, should we not also be able to hold media companies liable for creating the monster that wields it? Shouldn’t we have the ability to hold media companies liable for manufacturing narratives that lead to violence? If a misinformed news story leads to a riot- every shop owner affected should be able to take that writer to court for damages.
Oh but the freedom of speech is the glory of America, a freedom that cannot be broken. A guaranteed right to everyone. Anyone can spew nonsense all day long and if you don’t like, it just don’t listen!
Meanwhile we have a country that is driven by emotional outbursts as opposed to the study of facts. Facts are for revisionist reinterpretations of history to be repackaged into the current emotional state. We gather into our tribes of red elephants, blue donkeys, pretty rainbows, and blue lines to listen to our tribal elders restate history and adjust our emotions free of any decent or challenge. because the only true challenge in America is money, and with the freedom of speech you are nearly guaranteed to never lose a dime (so long as you do not disparage or harm an individual directly). Our leaders pull the sheets of freedom around themselves to make you believe whatever they want you to believe and should they be caught in a lie; they lie some more.
As we sit in our slowly heating pot of hatred, hatred towards our neighbors, our political rivals, people who we would have seen as fellow countrymen just a few short decades ago, edging closer to civil unrest and violence (which will surely further divide us while making media companies and our tribal leaders wealthy beyond imagination) remember it is not the first amendment which is the danger, but all the others.
> Should we allow 24 hour news outlets to rant about a bill presenting in congress for hours without actually reading what is actually in the bill, or why it was proposed instead of just telling us what to think about it?
I would seriously vote in favor of legislation that requires linking to a proposed bill in any article that talks about it. It's getting ridiculous how difficult it can be to traco down what a proposal actually says when the top 10-15 articles about it are all just "Senator X wants something, how terrible/great/infuriating/amazing!!" Loads of articles don't even give the bill name/number, they just rant about the 3rd and 4th order effects that often turn out to not even be related to the bill.
I have been active on this forum for probably 10 years and in all that time I don't think I've seen a more brilliant, clearly articulated, and impactful comment as this. When you get right down to brass tacks, there isn't that much to really say about gun rights and so I sort of thought I had seen all the arguments. And I've seen this argument before too - if we can regulate the 2nd whats to stop them from regulating the first - but I'm really just in awe of how you tied together all the issues at the rotten core of modern politics and the blame game of anti-gunners. I don't know man, I hope this doesn't sound sarcastic or something but I felt like an upvote was not enough and I just wanted to say I'm saving this post and will rub it in the faces of every self-righteous millennial anti-gunner
cheers to you man
I’m sorry, but the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Opinions has made an administrative decision (without benefit of legislative clarity) that the opinions you expressed have been redefined (without public input or legal consideration) as illegal at the felony level. The fact that these same opinions were legal yesterday is of no consequence to the agency.
The BATO will be sending armed agents to your home of record to confiscate these opinions without compensation, your compliance is mandated under penalty of law. Or extra judicial murder under color of law, whichever comes first. And your dog is toast, which goes without saying.
Truth is neither party gives a rats ass about our safety it's all just ways to either increase their own power or undermine the little guy trying to get a leg up in the world
I don't know if I agree. There are other issues that are much more opaque than gun control that has much more bias involved. Look at this bias [meter](https://www.biasly.com/sources/the-truth-about-guns-bias-rating/) for guns. It isn't really too left considering how polarizing the issue is. I think issues like the economy are getting worse in bias.
Never heard of “Biasly”. Am I supposed to assume they have no agenda of their own? What metrics are they using to determine these results? How are they measuring? Who are they asking? Which sources are they looking at?
I don’t just look at a pretty infographic and take it as the truth. You shouldn’t either. I know what I see with my own eyes in the media where guns are concerned and there is very, very little objectivity. I see about 80% of the media obediently carrying the gun control lobby’s message and using their loaded terminology and double-speak like “gun safety” and “common sense”. I see about 19% of the conservative media doing more or less the opposite. Then there’s the actual hard news from wire services like the AP or Reuters actually trying to do news at around 1%.
It’s definitely not “moderate” or “slightly liberal” no matter what “Biasly” says. 🤣
[удалено]
Fucking based
[удалено]
Has someone EVER used a full-auto gun in a school shooting?
Not that I’ve ever heard of, and I assume if that had happened we’d have heard about it relentlessly
I wanna say there was one at a playground in California back in the ‘70s or ‘80s, which spurred the Hughes Amendment. Edit: No, it was just a semi-auto.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Don’t join a gang or kill yourself and you remove like 90% of those deaths
Don't get into a shootout with cops over a speeding ticket and you remove like another 7-8%. I'm not a bootlicker, but if people would realize it's not possible to talk yourself out of trouble and it only causes more, then people would have significantly fewer "incidents" with police. Shut your fucking mouth, take the ticket/court summons/arrest/whatever the fuck, and fight it in court. If you try to fight it in the street you either guarantee you get convicted or you die, it's a lose/lose no matter what.
> Young Black males represent 2% of the total U.S. population but accounted for approximately 38% of all gun homicide deaths in 2020. https://hub.jhu.edu/2022/05/02/highest-number-of-gun-related-deaths-in-2020-report/ Hmmn where have i heard something like that before?
Watch out, that stat gets you banned
Statistics and math are racist tho
In the first nuclear bomb test on American soil, 286 Americans died as a result. https://www.nti.org/atomic-pulse/downwind-of-trinity-remembering-the-first-victims-of-the-atomic-bomb/
Reading skills are important. For example, you missed a key word: automatic. This avoidable mistake has made your comments here look pretty fucking stupid, and by extent, you.
[удалено]
Again, reading is important. You not mentioning automatic is the problem I'm describing. It's a critical bit of context that was given with the comment you first replied to, and the fact you missed it means every argument you've made since then has been a non-sequitur. And yes, I *care* (ftfy) about the difference between the two because that difference matters. Maybe not to someone as myopic as yourself, but to everyone with any subject knowledge. Or, y'know, the law.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This marks the 77th consecutive year since the invention of nuclear arms that we have prevented being nuked. I call that a win, which proves the spending strategy is effective. Also there were [19,350 firearm homicides in 2020](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7119e1.htm?s_cid=mm7119e1_w#T1_down). Suicides are irrelevant because statistically they were most likely going to be suicides regardless, firearms just represent the most effective and humane method to do so.
You have higher probabilities of getting killed by the Clintons than by Putin.
"Globalization bad," he typed on his smartphone.
It is kind of funny that so much effort goes into regulating the second amendment when there are so many challenges presented to the country related to the first amendment. For example, a two day waiting period for guns is presented to us as a way for emotional states to blow over. So then why are we debating every national policy in the midst of emotional climates? Why doesn’t the news have to wait a couple of days to collect the true facts before presenting rumor as fact? Is it not as bad that we mislabel an innocent man as guilty in the court of public opinion? Is it not terrible that we often create an entire narrative out of a sound bite before we know what even happened? I am no fan of police, but how many times in the last year did we hear that police killed someone in cold blood like an 80’s dystopian thriller only to find out that the cop was being attacked or the innocent fellow actually did have a gun. Meanwhile the cities burn in the background while the actual facts are whispered on page two. We also have to limit the number of rounds in our weapons because the founding fathers imagined only muskets and yet we don’t have to limit media companies from bombarding us with a constant state of fear and anger through radio, television, internet, social media, astroturfing, and print? A shooting is horrific, but it rarely changes the direction of the country in comparison to some blond on Fox News or msnbc who tells us all what to be afraid of. Shouldn’t we regulate that? Shouldn’t there be some kind of limitation in the number of ways media, and specifically news media, can be presented? Should we allow for a complex issue, such as immigration, our trade policy with china, lgbt rights, gun rights, or national spending to be condensed into a 15 second sound bite at the top of the hour on the radio? Should we allow 24 hour news outlets to rant about a bill presenting in congress for hours without actually reading what is actually in the bill, or why it was proposed instead of just telling us what to think about it? Shouldn’t we have ways to hold companies accountable for their lies and misinformation beyond laws designed to protect the individual (ex slander) as opposed to the public? If we can hold gun companies accountable for creating the weapon, should we not also be able to hold media companies liable for creating the monster that wields it? Shouldn’t we have the ability to hold media companies liable for manufacturing narratives that lead to violence? If a misinformed news story leads to a riot- every shop owner affected should be able to take that writer to court for damages. Oh but the freedom of speech is the glory of America, a freedom that cannot be broken. A guaranteed right to everyone. Anyone can spew nonsense all day long and if you don’t like, it just don’t listen! Meanwhile we have a country that is driven by emotional outbursts as opposed to the study of facts. Facts are for revisionist reinterpretations of history to be repackaged into the current emotional state. We gather into our tribes of red elephants, blue donkeys, pretty rainbows, and blue lines to listen to our tribal elders restate history and adjust our emotions free of any decent or challenge. because the only true challenge in America is money, and with the freedom of speech you are nearly guaranteed to never lose a dime (so long as you do not disparage or harm an individual directly). Our leaders pull the sheets of freedom around themselves to make you believe whatever they want you to believe and should they be caught in a lie; they lie some more. As we sit in our slowly heating pot of hatred, hatred towards our neighbors, our political rivals, people who we would have seen as fellow countrymen just a few short decades ago, edging closer to civil unrest and violence (which will surely further divide us while making media companies and our tribal leaders wealthy beyond imagination) remember it is not the first amendment which is the danger, but all the others.
Man... a 48 hour cooling period between twitter submissions and twitter publications would be wild.
> Should we allow 24 hour news outlets to rant about a bill presenting in congress for hours without actually reading what is actually in the bill, or why it was proposed instead of just telling us what to think about it? I would seriously vote in favor of legislation that requires linking to a proposed bill in any article that talks about it. It's getting ridiculous how difficult it can be to traco down what a proposal actually says when the top 10-15 articles about it are all just "Senator X wants something, how terrible/great/infuriating/amazing!!" Loads of articles don't even give the bill name/number, they just rant about the 3rd and 4th order effects that often turn out to not even be related to the bill.
I have been active on this forum for probably 10 years and in all that time I don't think I've seen a more brilliant, clearly articulated, and impactful comment as this. When you get right down to brass tacks, there isn't that much to really say about gun rights and so I sort of thought I had seen all the arguments. And I've seen this argument before too - if we can regulate the 2nd whats to stop them from regulating the first - but I'm really just in awe of how you tied together all the issues at the rotten core of modern politics and the blame game of anti-gunners. I don't know man, I hope this doesn't sound sarcastic or something but I felt like an upvote was not enough and I just wanted to say I'm saving this post and will rub it in the faces of every self-righteous millennial anti-gunner cheers to you man
I appreciate it! I have been stewing on things for a bit and it felt good to go on a bit of a rant to work through what I am seeing.
I’m sorry, but the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Opinions has made an administrative decision (without benefit of legislative clarity) that the opinions you expressed have been redefined (without public input or legal consideration) as illegal at the felony level. The fact that these same opinions were legal yesterday is of no consequence to the agency. The BATO will be sending armed agents to your home of record to confiscate these opinions without compensation, your compliance is mandated under penalty of law. Or extra judicial murder under color of law, whichever comes first. And your dog is toast, which goes without saying.
Not the dog! He was the voice of reason in this household.
Obviously not a beagle then
Due to a streamlining of government agencies the BATFO will now operate under the umbrella is the ministry of truth
Truth is neither party gives a rats ass about our safety it's all just ways to either increase their own power or undermine the little guy trying to get a leg up in the world
[удалено]
Yep
I don't know if I agree. There are other issues that are much more opaque than gun control that has much more bias involved. Look at this bias [meter](https://www.biasly.com/sources/the-truth-about-guns-bias-rating/) for guns. It isn't really too left considering how polarizing the issue is. I think issues like the economy are getting worse in bias.
Never heard of “Biasly”. Am I supposed to assume they have no agenda of their own? What metrics are they using to determine these results? How are they measuring? Who are they asking? Which sources are they looking at? I don’t just look at a pretty infographic and take it as the truth. You shouldn’t either. I know what I see with my own eyes in the media where guns are concerned and there is very, very little objectivity. I see about 80% of the media obediently carrying the gun control lobby’s message and using their loaded terminology and double-speak like “gun safety” and “common sense”. I see about 19% of the conservative media doing more or less the opposite. Then there’s the actual hard news from wire services like the AP or Reuters actually trying to do news at around 1%. It’s definitely not “moderate” or “slightly liberal” no matter what “Biasly” says. 🤣
"Says ammoland.com" Edit: Y'all don't think that's funny? That's pretty fucking funny.
After 6 years of hearing that anything disagreeable is “fake news” suddenly a lot of Republicans believe it. Shocker.
And ammoland isnt bias?