Shooting at Florida School, Shooter IS in custody. - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53138906]Why are liberals so suprised that trump won, when they've been putting themselves on a pedestal and having a massive superiority complex?[/QUOTE] I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse for the sake of argument and poking fun at phygon, but the reason this "superiority complex" exists is because conservatives in the US government have been so outwardly moronic and malicious on a regular basis. It's not hard to see why liberals and the left look down on conservative politicians when they pull what they pull. The simple fact of the matter is that voting Dem [I]is[/I] arguably objectively superior due to the blatant ignoring of facts by the right to their own selfish ends. It simply can't be argued that the attitudes that conservatives have towards things like the environment and climate change are anything less than morally bankrupt. Now don't get me wrong here. Until now I've been taking that sentence in isolation and have extrapolated it to a more general context. In terms of the gun debate, I've learned over time through the patience and solid arguments of the pro-gun crowd on facepunch that it's a lot more complicated and difficult to solve than I initially gave it credit for a couple of years ago. The gun attitudes of the Dems is definitely something I think could use improvement. Small feelgood measures don't get us anywhere, and I can completely understand the angst gun owners and enthusiasts have for the blues when they've done nothing to earn their trust and favor. Lastly, I would say for sure that this aforementioned "superiority complex" should never extend to voters and common people. I've met a lot of really pleasant, kind, and great people that are conservatives and/or voted for Trump. I think that you should use the information and knowledge you have to benefit the understandings of others, not to put them down. It is to a much higher moral standard, and is more effective, to show goodwill to others and try to convince them of your stances through facts, reasoning, and discourse. I just don't like the narrative that liberals and the left should be consistently demonized for having a superiority complex when it's substantiated on a number of fronts, at least towards general politics and intentionally deceptive politicians currently in office.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;53138402]If you look at the stats from that article ([URL]https://public.tableau.com/profile/metropolitan.police.service#!/vizhome/MPSFY201617CrimeStatistics/NOTES[/URL]) that stat is actually a bit deceptive. That's gun crime as an umbrella term, where the Policing and Crime Act 2017/Firearms Act 1968 defines firearm to include some air rifles ([URL]https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms[/URL]), weapon attachments, among other crimes. So that gun crimes stat would include people using air rifles illegally or having tools that could be suspected for use in conversion of firearms the two stats that are more interesting are Gun Crime Lethal Barrelled Discharged, Gun Crime Personal Robbery and Homicide, which are 306, 567 and 110 respectively. I think it would be uncontroversial to say that 306 events of a lethal, barreled firearm being discharged in a year for a city the size of London is pretty outrageously low. (0.000034 per person in London on the first count) - and that homicide statistic is a grouped one, so it includes all other homicides, not just gun related homicides Depending on your definition of where London stops, it's either 8.8 million or 12 million, so London "alone" is a bit deceptive, because London can encapsulate 1/5-6th of the population of England, or 1/7-8th of the population of the UK in total - it's nearly an order of magnitude larger than the next biggest city (Birmingham) - so saying london "alone" to someone from the UK comes across as a bit weird.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=El Burro;53138698]This is it. Some seem to forget that our gun control policy is pretty much zero tolerance to the point where if you're caught by the Police in a public place even with an imitation, you'll be summonsed to court, given a large fine [I]and[/I] a conviction under the Firearms Act 1968. I had it happen to me in 2004, I was messing with some mates on a bit of derelict land near a park doing some target shooting with a pretty convincing imitation air pistol, somebody calls the rozzers and boom, I have a [URL="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/19"]Section 19[/URL] firearms offense on my criminal record. This would have been recorded as a gun crime offense, I imagine shit like this happens in London every other day.[/QUOTE] These are both good posts, good info. I didn't know any of that. I cede that the gun ban in the UK has been more effective than I thought (but perhaps still less effective than many think) & that I was mistaken to use that in my argument. I also didn't realize London represented that much of a chunk of the UK population. Regardless; the UK still has a pretty serious problem with violence - admittedly less fatal, but I'm not personally satisfied with just making crime less fatal. I want to deal with the sources of violent crime. I'd like to give you a more substantive reply but I have to go any minute now and don't want to be in the middle of typing something big when my ride gets here. I'll be back later!

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53139007]These are both good posts, good info. I didn't know any of that. I cede that the gun ban in the UK has been more effective than I thought (but perhaps still less effective than many think) & that I was mistaken to use that in my argument. I also didn't realize London represented that much of a chunk of the UK population. Regardless; the UK still has a pretty serious problem with violence - admittedly less fatal, but I'm not personally satisfied with just making crime less fatal. I want to deal with the sources of violent crime. I'd like to give you a more substantive reply but I have to go any minute now and don't want to be in the middle of typing something big when my ride gets here. I'll be back later![/QUOTE] Hey no worries man, you've been making plenty of good posts in here already. No rush. Anyway, that's what I was trying to get at earlier, but these guys were clearly more equipped than I was to handle the rebuttal. Here's my biggest point of contention with all of this, and where I think the rift between our thinking lies. I think the place where we differ in philosophy is in that you (and others) "aren't satisfied" with making crime less fatal. To be honest, I think that's an entirely noble goal worth pursuing at any cost. You simply cannot put a price on human life, especially the lives of innocents that get their lives stolen from them. You cannot so easily just "deal with the sources of violent crime", which is already put pretty simply, when those sources are many and vast. So long as [I]poverty[/I] exists, you'll have violent crime. Now, of course, that's just one of many sources, but it's indicative of the sheer scale of the problems that cause violent crime and have caused violent crime for literally thousands of years. Some of these things are flat out endemic to civilization as we know it and currently understand it. Now I don't doubt we can do lots of achievable things to improve violent crime rates, especially in the US, but at the same time I think that making that very same violent crime cost [B]significantly[/B] less innocent lives is something at the very least worth considering as part of the bigger picture.

One thing I notice and think is big problem with these events, is how the media overblows it and puts the shooter up on a pedestal, giving him fame. Other people see this and try to out do them, it was a common remark this recent shooter made. Media needs to back off of these tragedies and only let local news cover it. It disgusts me how all these other news channels and shit rush to these things like vultures.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53139052]Absolutely, but considering other options before implementing more rules would be prudent. Also enforcing the current laws on the books should be considered as well, as gun laws in some states are woefully unenforced (sometimes because they're unenforceable, sometimes because LEO is lazy). Getting rid of the motivations to commit crime, along side enforcing the laws specifically designed to make it hard to get weapons for criminals, should be our first priorities. Never again should we hear "the fbi knew about this dude, but didn't investigate" or "the dude was supposed to be flagged in the NICS, but someone didn't do their job".[/QUOTE] How realistic do you genuinely think entirely stamping out incompetence and "the motivations to commit crime" are? I think that they can be reduced, but again, is it possible to do so to such a degree that it would make up for the massive disparity between the US and other countries in fatal violent crime that our exceptional gun presence and lax gun laws create? To be entirely fair here, I really don't really think our gun ownership rates are entirely to blame here. While our saturation likely does mean more guns falling into the hands of those that shouldn't have them, I don't think our rates are [I]so[/I] excessive compared to the likes of countries like Canada and Norway (30 per 100 people compared to roughly 101 to 100 people in the US) that they explain the colossal disparity in both gun crime/fatalities as well as in mass shootings. To my understanding, though, Canada and Norway [I]do[/I] have stricter gun laws overall. I think that it's impossible to place the blame on any one factor for the gun problem in the US, and as such I don't have any one answer to solve it. Grenadiac's list of common-sense legislation seems like a good place to start, though, so hopefully we start to see less politicians spinning their wheels and more with an informed head on their shoulders looking to make some actual progress.

[QUOTE=Richardroth;53139068]One thing I notice and think is big problem with these events, is how the media overblows it and puts the shooter up on a pedestal, giving him fame. Other people see this and try to out do them, it was a common remark this recent shooter made. Media needs to back off of these tragedies and only let local news cover it. It disgusts me how all these other news channels and shit rush to these things like vultures.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah I definitely agree here, somehow mass shootings have almost become a part of American culture to the point where it's expected to have one sooner or later, which I think is part of why we see them happening so frequently. I think a more effective approach would to be focusing on the victims than the attackers, which I have noticed happening more often in recent times. Hopefully that approach shows some improvement.

On my phone here but I think it's much more realistic to put a big dent in sources of crime than to put a big dent in gun ownership rates. You might be able to get them out of the hands of licit owners in cities but getting them away from gang members & any former legal owners (former assuming there's some kind of ban) in rural areas where the majority of guns are is going to be a real trick. Much more practical and overall beneficial to society to improve our social programs to start grappling with the ridiculous youth crime rates we have & other issues. Worth noting that while our firearm homicide rate is quite high compared to other countries, our overall homicide rate is still so low as to be almost statistically negligible. It's only because we have such a large population that very very very small percentages result in tangible body counts.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53139089]I genuinely think that with effort, its possible to get rid of the vast majority of motivations of crime (such as drug turf wars, poverty, etc etc). I think that stamping out incompetence would be harder. But attaching a penalty of "hey, if you were supposed to log this, and you didn't, congrats, you're getting charged with accessory to murder, enjoy jail fuckface", would go a long way to making more people vigilant. Also having more oversight over these bodies would be helpful as well, and would make it easier to punish those who had been incompetent.[/QUOTE] Again, I think that you're being a little overly optimistic with the whole "we can get rid of poverty with enough effort" thing. There is really no evidence that a society that lies on the foundations of Capitalism will ever exist without an underclass or the greatly impoverished. It simply places too much importance on material wealth which not everyone can reasonably attain. That's not a knock on Capitalist society (well, maybe a little) but more of a somber reality.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53139106]On my phone here but I think it's much more realistic to put a big dent in sources of crime than to put a big dent in gun ownership rates. You might be able to get them out of the hands of licit owners in cities but getting them away from gang members & any former legal owners (former assuming there's some kind of ban) in rural areas where the majority of guns are is going to be a real trick. Much more practical and overall beneficial to society to improve our social programs to start grappling with the ridiculous youth crime rates we have & other issues. Worth noting that while our firearm homicide rate is quite high compared to other countries, our overall homicide rate is still so low as to be almost statistically negligible". It's only because we have such a large population that very very very small percentages result in tangible body counts.[/QUOTE] Where do you get this impression from, by curiosity? [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate"]According to recent figures,[/url] the US' intentional homicide rate is 4.88 per 100,000, which I wouldn't exactly call "so low as to be almost statistically negligible. I think our closest comparable on the list by proximity in terms of culture/economic stability is Canada all the way down there at a rate of 1.68 per 100,000. That's a pretty significant disparity. The UK has a rate below 1 per 100,000. Which I feel is worth mentioning as their poverty rates are [url="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2046.html"]virtually identical to ours[/url].

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;53138841]but then you just say "nah never been convicted never smoked pot and surely not a felon" and you still buy guns..[/QUOTE] that is not even close to true

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;53138841]but then you just say "nah never been convicted never smoked pot and surely not a felon" and you still buy guns..[/QUOTE] That's not how it works. When buying a gun from a licensed dealer every dealer runs a NICS background check. The only exception is for states that are Brady compliant, where in the state issues you a permit for purchase that included a NICS check during the application and is checked every year. When a felon is able to buy a gun from a licensed dealer, such as the case with that guy who shot up the black church, it was a failure of the NICS system. What many people don't understand is that many of the things they're asking for are already on the books, the problem is is enforcement is terrible. Do you know how many people get convicted of straw purchase, selling guns through private sale to prohibited persons, selling guns for profit without a licence, etc. ? Hardly any, because the ATF is stretched super thin and would much rather deal with the big fish such as south of the border arms trade than the street thugs girlfriend with a clean record buying a gun for him.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;53139318]That's not how it works. When buying a gun from a licensed dealer every dealer runs a NICS background check. The only exception is for states that are Brady compliant, where in the state issues you a permit for purchase that included a NICS check during the application and is checked every year. When a felon is able to buy a gun from a licensed dealer, such as the case with that guy who shot up the black church, it was a failure of the NICS system. What many people don't understand is that many of the things they're asking for are already on the books, the problem is is enforcement is terrible. Do you know how many people get convicted of straw purchase, selling guns through private sale to prohibited persons, selling guns for profit without a licence, etc. ? Hardly any, because the ATF is stretched super thin and would much rather deal with the big fish such as south of the border arms trade than the street thugs girlfriend with a clean record buying a gun for him.[/QUOTE] The ATF is fucking useless. They can’t even go after the big fish right without getting innocent people killed. The ATF is so incompetent that when I heard they were deploying response teams to the last school shooting on the news, my first thought was “oh shit I hope they don’t shoot anyone by mistake”.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;53139126]Where do you get this impression from, by curiosity? [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate"]According to recent figures,[/url] the US' intentional homicide rate is 4.88 per 100,000, which I wouldn't exactly call "so low as to be almost statistically negligible. I think our closest comparable on the list by proximity in terms of culture/economic stability is Canada all the way down there at a rate of 1.68 per 100,000. That's a pretty significant disparity. The UK has a rate below 1 per 100,000. Which I feel is worth mentioning as their poverty rates are [url="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2046.html"]virtually identical to ours[/url].[/QUOTE] 0.00488% is practically statistically negligible - and it's dropping every year. It is absolutely worth taking whatever realistic action we can take to do something about it, but getting murdered is not really a common problem faced by Americans. There is a lot of alarmist rhetoric going around, which is not useful. We have to keep in mind the US is already a very safe country with isolated hotspots of violence. I would like to see how the national homicide rate looks excluding some of the extreme outliers like Flint and Chicago, but I don't really know how best to do the math on that.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53139106]On my phone here but I think it's much more realistic to put a big dent in sources of crime than to put a big dent in gun ownership rates. You might be able to get them out of the hands of licit owners in cities but getting them away from gang members & any former legal owners (former assuming there's some kind of ban) in rural areas where the majority of guns are is going to be a real trick. Much more practical and overall beneficial to society to improve our social programs to start grappling with the ridiculous youth crime rates we have & other issues. Worth noting that while our firearm homicide rate is quite high compared to other countries, our overall homicide rate is still so low as to be almost statistically negligible. It's only because we have such a large population that very very very small percentages result in tangible body counts.[/QUOTE] The question then becomes, how do you put a dent in sources of crime? The most effective way to do so is to make your population less poverty-stricken, but in the worst areas of the country, that's unbelievably difficult to actually achieve. How do you help heal a city like Detroit, for instance? [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53139110]I mean simply getting rid of the choice of "food or medicine" would contribute so much to reducing crime. If we improved our safety nets, and our social programs, to the point that even if you were DIRT poor, you still knew that you'd have food, and could still go to the hospital/doctor without breaking the bank, that'd get rid of a loooot of problems. I'm not so naive as to think that poverty can be entirely eliminated. But its effects can be reduced. I think that as a society, we can work towards being less materialistic, and work towards things like the "Iphone" not being symbols of wealth for others to covet.[/QUOTE] This next bit is for the above post, and also this one. I agree with you. And this is also part of the reason that it's difficult to not be frustrated at conservatives, because [I]absolutely everything you just described is against the republican and other conservative party platforms[/I]. Socialist healthcare has been fought against tooth and nail by conservative leaders for decades, and so has effectively every other social program that would actually help improve the situation.

Don't be frustrated at conservatives. Be frustrated at conservative/Republican [I]lawmakers[/I]. Most politicians are bought & paid for, but Republicans are definitely owned by far worse interests than Democrats. The social programs we have are pretty shit (thanks in large part to those lawmakers) and it would be useless to throw money at them without extreme reforms. But it's not hard to imagine what kinds of new programs could help keep places like Detroit from bottoming out. It will be a long time before Detroit is healed, but as ilikecorn said, there's plenty we can do to keep people there from feeling like they have to turn to crime to put food on the table.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53139701]Don't be frustrated at conservatives. Be frustrated at conservative/Republican [I]lawmakers[/I]. Most politicians are bought & paid for, but Republicans are definitely owned by far worse interests than Democrats.[/QUOTE] How is there a meaningful difference if conservative voters are the reason that these people are in power? These people typically do exactly what they say they will as far as cutting programs, attempting to drop tax rates just for the sake of dropping them, etc. We have a basis for a health better system care [I]now[/I], and it's actively being attacked and attempted to be dismantled and the politicians doing so were 100% clear about their intentions. Conservative policies quite honestly blow my mind. They prey on the poor and the economically ignorant, they appeal to nebulous concepts like "the good old days" and "the way things used to be", seek to remove reproductive rights from over half the population, discriminate against large groups of people (lgbt), against legal immigrants, and more. How am I supposed to not be frustrated? I don't see a single modicum of value in anything that modern conservative rhetoric in this country is trying to achieve.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53139528]The ATF is fucking useless. They can’t even go after the big fish right without getting innocent people killed. The ATF is so incompetent that when I heard they were deploying response teams to the last school shooting on the news, my first thought was “oh shit I hope they don’t shoot anyone by mistake”.[/QUOTE] They're also hopelessly corrupt, they created their own black budget by running a cigarette smuggling ring. The ATF was complicit in the exact same crimes they are tasked with stopping.

[QUOTE=phygon;53139732]How is there a meaningful difference if conservative voters are the reason that these people are in power? These people typically do exactly what they say they will as far as cutting programs, attempting to drop tax rates just for the sake of dropping them, etc. We have a basis for a health better system care [I]now[/I], and it's actively being attacked and attempted to be dismantled and the politicians doing so were 100% clear about their intentions. Conservative policies quite honestly blow my mind. They prey on the poor and the economically ignorant, they appeal to nebulous concepts like "the good old days" and "the way things used to be", seek to remove reproductive rights from over half the population, discriminate against large groups of people (lgbt), against legal immigrants, and more. How am I supposed to not be frustrated? I don't see a single modicum of value in anything that modern conservative rhetoric in this country is trying to achieve.[/QUOTE] The far right doesn't represent all conservatives any more than tumblr sjws represent all liberals. I avoid labeling myself in general but it'd be more accurate to call me a conservative than anything else. Parties and labels are shaking this country apart and making it next to impossible to have a rational conversation about issues. It's ridiculous and I am tired of it.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53139790]The far right doesn't represent all conservatives any more than tumblr sjws represent all liberals. I avoid labeling myself in general but it'd be more accurate to call me a conservative than anything else. Parties and labels are shaking this country apart and making it next to impossible to have a rational conversation about issues. It's ridiculous and I am tired of it.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about the far right, I'm talking about literally every single tenant of conservative ideology from "taxes are bad" to "poor people should pick themselves up by their boot straps". Not a single thing that I mentioned was something that's exclusive to the far right, I intentionally avoided mentioning those topics because they aren't representative. I don't see any value in a platform designed with the sole purpose of avoiding change just for the sake of avoiding change.

[QUOTE=phygon;53139814]I'm not talking about the far right, I'm talking about literally every single tenant of conservative ideology from "taxes are bad" to "poor people should pick themselves up by their boot straps". Not a single thing that I mentioned was something that's exclusive to the far right, I intentionally avoided mentioning those topics because they aren't representative.[/QUOTE] Those aren't conservative ideals. You are describing reactionary ideals. A baseline conservative approach to a subject like gay marriage would be, "let churches that want to marry gays marry gays but don't force churches that don't want to." Banning it outright is a reactionary ideal. A baseline conservative approach to social programs is to set up safety nets that help people who need them but which cannot be exploited for a free ride forever. Removing/handicapping social programs is a reactionary ideal. A baseline conservative approach to taxes is "high tax rates are a cushion for government excess." Minimal/no taxes, or shifting the entire tax burden to the poor, is a reactionary ideal. You don't know what conservatism means.

Honestly conservatives (GOP that is) you see today are just as big government as liberals, they're just big government in different ways They're masking themselves as 'for the working class' but most of the big ones don't actually truly believe in state rights, not when it comes to things they care about. They believe in corporate rights than anything. Everything is ok until you talk about weed, abortion, drug war, certain personal liberties, etc They [B]really [/B]poorly represent what conservationism even is.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53139821] A baseline conservative approach to a subject like gay marriage would be, "let churches that want to marry gays marry gays but don't force churches that don't want to." Banning it outright is a reactionary ideal. [/QUOTE] No, honestly, it's a conservative one. The only policy makers that were fighting gay marriage being legalized were conservative. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;53139821] A baseline conservative approach to social programs is to set up safety nets that help people who need them but[B] which cannot be exploited for a free ride forever[/B]. Removing/handicapping social programs is a reactionary ideal. [/QUOTE] Designing programs specifically so that they cannot be "ridden forever" is the same thing as handicapping them. Doubly so when it has been proven time and time again that welfare queens and similar literally do not exist. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;53139821] A baseline conservative approach to taxes is "high tax rates are a cushion for government excess." Minimal/no taxes, or shifting the entire tax burden to the poor, is a reactionary ideal. [/QUOTE] I actually don't quite understand what you're saying her, can you please elaborate? [/QUOTE] You don't know what conservatism means.[/QUOTE] Yes, I do. I know what the ideology is in theory, and in practice. You can no true scotsman all you want on all of this but the fact of the matter is that conservative voters have time and time again elected people that tirelessly work against their own interests, the interests of the poor, and the interests of the marginalized.

God damn liberals making black atheist transgender marriage MANDATORY for INNOCENT CHILDREN [editline]17th February 2018[/editline] When will the madness end [editline]17th February 2018[/editline] At the end of the day I'm not going to have my political views dictated to me by the ignorant so they can argue at me about positions I don't hold, so if you're going to continue along this line I'm afraid this conversation is over. I'm sure it would be really useful for you if I was actually the Nazi you think conservatives are, but I'm not.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53139845]God damn liberals making black atheist transgender marriage MANDATORY for INNOCENT CHILDREN [editline]17th February 2018[/editline] When will the madness end [editline]17th February 2018[/editline] At the end of the day I'm not going to have my political views dictated to me by the ignorant so they can argue at me about positions I don't hold, so if you're going to continue along this line I'm afraid this conversation is over.[/QUOTE] Did I say for a single second that those are the views that [I]you hold[/I]? I'm talking about what conservative ideology literally, unarguably is by definition. To quote the definition from wikipedia (sourced from here) [quote]Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, human imperfection, organic society, hierarchy and authority and property rights.[1] Conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as monarchy, religion, parliamentary government and property rights with the aim of emphasizing social stability and continuity[/quote] So, yes, fighting gay marriage was absolutely a conservative point of policy. [QUOTE=Grenadiac;53139845] I'm sure it would be really useful for you if I was actually the Nazi you think conservatives are, but I'm not.[/QUOTE] Yeah, because I sure did for even a single second insult you personally, or call you a Nazi, or call conservatives Nazis. Wait, no, I just voiced frustration about how conservatives repeatedly have, and will continue, to elect representatives that ride on platforms of totally deep dicking the poor and marginalized.

You have yourself a nice day partner

Trump is blaming the Democrats for not passing gun control under Obama [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965009332042596352[/media]

Okay donnie

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53140001]Trump is blaming the Democrats for not passing gun control under Obama [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/965009332042596352[/media][/QUOTE] Okay not gonna day called it, but called it. My girlfriend and I knew that at some point Donald was going to try and pass gun control, probably sweeping regulations like Reagan, and moronic republicans would eat it up despite one of the most important rights to them being wiped away.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53140014]Okay not gonna day called it, but called it. My girlfriend and I knew that at some point Donald was going to try and pass gun control, probably sweeping regulations like Reagan, and moronic republicans would eat it up despite one of the most important rights to them being wiped away.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't take this as him proposing gun control. Simply just another jab at the dumb liberal left for failing again.

[IMG]https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png[/IMG] "Compromise" has always been "We get what we want and you get nothing." How about Universal Background Checks, but we remove short barred rifles, short barreled shotguns, and suppressors from the NFA as well as remove state laws and make the federal laws universal? (I.E. no mag restrictions, etc.) But no. THIS is what we get instead. [video=youtube;iJmFEv6BHM0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0[/video] [video=youtube;9rGpykAX1fo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo[/video] [video=youtube;Mj4AcjyuV38]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj4AcjyuV38[/video] THIS is why I changed parties. When I noticed the democrats were trying to ban everything they disagree with, it struck a nerve with me (I grew up a sheltered life with overprotective parents) and they lost my vote. The fact they don't even know what they're talking about reinforces the notion they shouldn't be making laws as knee-jerk reaction. How about we ban assault politicians with high capacity mouths? NOBODY needs more than 3-4 pages to write a bill! We can even ban assault-style features such as a tri-fold wallet, tie clip, and frameless glasses. EDIT: [url]https://lawandcrime.com/important/california-has-banned-possession-of-high-capacity-magazines/[/url] "We are not coming for your stuff" "Legal possession by grandfathering is a loophole."