Active shooter thread

[Guest]

It's absolutely a case of blowing their wads to get "something" instead of getting reform that would actually work. 

Dems took their swing and fucking missed because they didn't even get the bat off their shoulder.

[Brisketexan 105151]

2 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Fucking garbage. Sorry Uvalde, 19 fourth-graders isn't enough to get the most basic gun reform passed -- or anything that would have prevented their death. These are the ideas that can save lives immediately.

I mean.....there already ARE criminal penalties for negligent storage of firearms in the home.  If your conduct in a particular case - whether it be about leaving firearms out, toxic chemicals out, etc. -- meets the standard of criminally negligent conduct, you can be charged and convicted.

As for safe storage laws being "unconstitutional," WTF is he even talking about?  How does "while you're not using it, keep guns in a way/place where unauthorized users can't get to them" violate the 2nd amendment?  Cornyn is a piece of dick.

[B00M 6416]

13 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Translation:  It's hard so we shouldn't try.

There's that fighting spirit that once made this country great.

Fucker.

It's a minor miracle there are 10 R senators on board, even informally. That gives exactly enough votes to be filibuster proof, right? Those 10 Rs are already facing immense pressure to get back in line. Traitors, etc... y'know, normal political discourse. Expanding from what was informally agreed upon will push at least 1 of the 10 out then the whole thing is fucked. 

[EuroHorn 3265]

23 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Did the tweet you posted get changed? Cuz it says the shots were off base.

Meaning they were off target?

[Loop 1604 227]

22 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Did the tweet you posted get changed? Cuz it says the shots were off base.

It said the shots were heard off base…

All joint bases in SA were on full lock down this morning. 

[Guest]

Just called his office and left a message.

It feels impotent. If Dems have agreed to this legislation, then what sort of ground do I have to stand on to argue for more? 

[wildcat09 29354]

Cornyn's tweet is one of the strangest things I think I've ever seen. It's not remotely clear who the intended audience is or what meaning they're supposed to take from his tweet. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33872]

 

[Dahobbs 17543]

3 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Fucking garbage. Sorry Uvalde, 19 fourth-graders isn't enough to get the most basic gun reform passed -- or anything that would have prevented their death. These are the ideas that can save lives immediately.

The comments are ridiculous as well. Tons of post about all of those being unconstitutional. That's the rationale the GOP will run with even though it is false. It's amazing how many people think that the 2nd amendment is somehow special and is the only one that doesn't allow any  regulation or restriction of a right. 

[RomaVicta 29909]

1 hour ago, Gap03 said:

Don't the Democrats see what's coming if they accept this garbage?  When the next slaughter happens (and we all know it will), the GQP is going to say, "See?  We tried and NO gun control legislation is going to stop these attacks!  We tried, and it has achieved nothing.  We're going to unwind all of this and just dump more money into the gun lobby's coffers by requiring that every school buy a shit-ton of weaponry, ballistic blankets / bulletproof window, etc."

If they're going to accept this, they need to position it as, "We tried, and this is the best we can do with the GQP  + Manchin / Sinema's stranglehold on the Senate.  We don't think it's going to do much, but we will continue to hammer away at these chickenshits until the gun violence stops."  But they won't because the Dems suck at politics, so they'll go on a victory lap on the Sunday news shoes, only to have it explode in their faces when it becomes painfully obvious that it has achieved nothing. 

Fuckin' Murica. 

Valid points particularly if we were in a functioning republic where a strong majority of voters could and would digest a compound sentence. They're not.

I think this move is the usual cynical wickedness of the GЯP in conjunction with their masters in the NЯA. 

If the Dems accept, everybody paying attention (those precious few) says they knuckled instead of getting real reform. The GЯP can delay further action after the next slaughter as you describe. "Control doesn't work."

If the Dems reject, the GЯP shrugs their shoulders and says, "we tried, but the commies in the Democrat Party wanted too much. The wanted too much because it's in their plan to seize control of the country once guns are confiscated."

Sometimes you just don't have a good option. The Dems are in this position all the time because of the filibuster. They're not a well-oiled political machine, but many of their ties and defeats in Congress are more the result of the ruthless party controlling the Senate.

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean.....there already ARE criminal penalties for negligent storage of firearms in the home.  If your conduct in a particular case - whether it be about leaving firearms out, toxic chemicals out, etc. -- meets the standard of criminally negligent conduct, you can be charged and convicted.

As for safe storage laws being "unconstitutional," WTF is he even talking about?  How does "while you're not using it, keep guns in a way/place where unauthorized users can't get to them" violate the 2nd amendment?  Cornyn is a piece of dick.

Second Amendment: The right to bear arms. 

There's your constitutional argument for the public. They ignore the militia part, but here than can really hang their hats on this word. Hell, it's their constitutional and patriotc duty to bear arms at all times just like the Founding Fathers we can't name intended, dumbass!

It's Idiot World, Jake.

[Foosters 17858]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Cornyn's tweet is one of the strangest things I think I've ever seen. It's not remotely clear who the intended audience is or what meaning they're supposed to take from his tweet. 

Possibly in response to the full-page ad taken out in DMN last week wherein dozens of wealthy GOP donors and 2nd amendment supporters called on Cornyn to DO SOMETHING?

[henrygandorf 29191]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Cornyn's tweet is one of the strangest things I think I've ever seen. It's not remotely clear who the intended audience is or what meaning they're supposed to take from his tweet. 

i would assume the intended audience is hardcore gop who are pissed that the party is coming to any type of compromise at all.  kind of a "don't worry, there's plenty of sensible stuff we shot down".

in a normal world, 40 senators would see that this vote was set to pass, and at least a handful of them would jump on board to show their constituents they have a heart.  in this current simulation, zero will do that, and getting these 10 to honor their word will be like pulling teeth.

the whole system is so screwed, it's no wonder mental illness is on the rise.

[Bat Guano 359]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Cornyn's tweet is one of the strangest things I think I've ever seen. It's not remotely clear who the intended audience is or what meaning they're supposed to take from his tweet. 

Seems to me the intended audience is the NRA and the takeaway is, "See, we really didn't do anything of substance so please don't primary me!"

[WhatTheBuck 28783]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Cornyn's tweet is one of the strangest things I think I've ever seen. It's not remotely clear who the intended audience is or what meaning they're supposed to take from his tweet. 

He’s got two faces and he’s giving us a rare look at the other one. 

[Blotto 23522]

3 hours ago, chainsaw said:

This is one of those rare instances where the GOP doesn't know what talking points to run with. It keeps changing, probably because there's some behind the scenes infighting about how to deal with Uvalde. I know the NRA people are just hoping the whole thing blows over and people will forget. But it seems like others in the GOP sense this one is different and want the optics of having done something (even if it's just the performative crumbs we're getting).

And the NRA is correct. We've been having these discussions for 20+ years. We have them every year. We'll be having them 20 years from now. The NRA/GOP knows they can run out the clock and reframe the election around gas prices/inflation or whatever outrage captures the american public's fancy in November. Nobody in the GOP feels much concern that Uvalde will cost them an election because these events happen (sadly) all the time and it hasnt cost them yet. This is all lip service until the heat dies down. They will confuse issues, muddle issues, blame democrats for destroying the constitution, etc... and in the end, Congress will enact zero meaningful gun reform. We should replace the Lucy/Charlie Brown football gif with congressional gun reform efforts.

You've got a certain percentage of Americans that vote exclusively for any candidates that will push back against gun reform. You may have another smaller group that votes exclusively for candidates that promise to enact gun control legislation. And you have a whole bunch of people in the middle. There's polling that indicates the majority of Americans are in favor of sensible gun control legislation. And they might be, when only considering that issue. But when it comes to voting in November, other shit takes precedence and we just get more of the same. 

 

[WBT 20579]

1 hour ago, Bat Guano said:

Seems to me the intended audience is the NRA and the takeaway is, "See, we really didn't do anything of substance so please don't primary me!"

Exactly.  Well the NRA and his voters who favor gun rights/oppose gun control.  He's bragging about what he kept out of the agreement.  I thought that much at least was clear.

Edited June 14, 2022 by WBT

[Satchel 6938]

28 minutes ago, WBT said:

Exactly.  Well the NRA and his voters who favor gun rights/oppose gun control.  He's bragging about what he kept out of the agreement.  I thought that much at least was clear.

Agreed.

[B00M 6416]

5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

It's amazing how many people think that the 2nd amendment is somehow special and is the only one that doesn't allow any  regulation or restriction of a right. 

 

There are thousands of state and federal firearm regulations already in existence. The laws are complicated, vary wildly from state to state, sometimes city to city.

They're often completely non-sensical: like a $25 plastic vertical fore grip that takes 2 minutes to install or remove making an otherwise 100% legal pistol a felony... but an angled fore grip is totally fine. When either way you can just grab the fucking hand guard.

And these laws are always subject to change via ATF (executive branch) rule making. They bypass Congress constantly. And ignorance of the law is no excuse.

It's also the only right that says, "shall not be infringed" ... Of course the 4th says, "shall not be violated" and it's getting trampled so...

[Brisketexan 105151]

12 minutes ago, B00M said:

 

There are thousands of state and federal firearm regulations already in existence. The laws are complicated, vary wildly from state to state, sometimes city to city.

They're often completely non-sensical: like a $25 plastic vertical fore grip that takes 2 minutes to install or remove making an otherwise 100% legal pistol a felony... but an angled fore grip is totally fine. When either way you can just grab the fucking hand guard.

And these laws are always subject to change via ATF (executive branch) rule making. They bypass Congress constantly. And ignorance of the law is no excuse.

It's also the only right that says, "shall not be infringed" ... Of course the 4th says, "shall not be violated" and it's getting trampled so...

From Heller, the definitive SCOTUS opinion on the 2nd amendment:

Quote

nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Those are the words of noted libtard commie gungrabber......Antonin Scalia.

Every fucker who reflexively opposes any and all proposed gun regulation with "shall not be infringed!" is a mouth-breathing moron who couldn't be wronger if they got in a magic wrongifying machine and turned the dial up to maximum wrongness.

It's just fucking stupid and flat-out wrong, and national leaders on the subject should respond to the Cornyn's of the world with brutally harsh truth - "Cornyn is a moron who can't even read the words of Justice Scalia, who told us that the 2nd amendment does NOT bar laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms, which this law would do.  Cornyn is either an idiot or a liar -- you figure out which, but it doesn't much matter.  Either way, he's a steaming pile of shit."

[B00M 6416]

52 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

From Heller, the definitive SCOTUS opinion on the 2nd amendment:

Those are the words of noted libtard commie gungrabber......Antonin Scalia.

Every fucker who reflexively opposes any and all proposed gun regulation with "shall not be infringed!" is a mouth-breathing moron who couldn't be wronger if they got in a magic wrongifying machine and turned the dial up to maximum wrongness.

It's just fucking stupid and flat-out wrong, and national leaders on the subject should respond to the Cornyn's of the world with brutally harsh truth - "Cornyn is a moron who can't even read the words of Justice Scalia, who told us that the 2nd amendment does NOT bar laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms, which this law would do.  Cornyn is either an idiot or a liar -- you figure out which, but it doesn't much matter.  Either way, he's a steaming pile of shit."

Cornyn is literally proposing laws that's have the shall not be infringed crowd up in arms. He showed the list of what's not going to be in the bill in an attempt to calm them down. All he did was inflame everyone. It's fascinating to watch both sides lash out at the only bill that has any hope of turning into law in the next year (or 3 if the Rs make gains at mid terms). 

Edited June 15, 2022 by B00M

[Dahobbs 17543]

1 hour ago, B00M said:

 

There are thousands of state and federal firearm regulations already in existence. The laws are complicated, vary wildly from state to state, sometimes city to city.

They're often completely non-sensical: like a $25 plastic vertical fore grip that takes 2 minutes to install or remove making an otherwise 100% legal pistol a felony... but an angled fore grip is totally fine. When either way you can just grab the fucking hand guard.

And these laws are always subject to change via ATF (executive branch) rule making. They bypass Congress constantly. And ignorance of the law is no excuse.

It's also the only right that says, "shall not be infringed" ... Of course the 4th says, "shall not be violated" and it's getting trampled so...

What the fuck ever. The first amendment is much firmer and says "congress shall pass no law." Yet, we have recognized the government's ability to reasonably restrict speech. Arguably, the second amendment doesn't actually do anything since it doesn't say anything about the powers of government.

Regardless, my point was that idiots believe that any law restricting or regulating firearms is unconstitutional. That's fundamentally at odds with our jurisprudence on the second amendment, much less much more important rights like... voting. I recognize laws exist. But right now the second amendment is being twisted by the GOP to convince the uneducated that nothing can be done. 

I don't think you even really read my post. You clearly didn't understand it since your focused on something I didn't say. 

Edited June 15, 2022 by Dahobbs

[jimmyjazz 45960]

52 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Every fucker who reflexively opposes any and all proposed gun regulation with "shall not be infringed!" is a mouth-breathing moron who couldn't be wronger if they got in a magic wrongifying machine and turned the dial up to maximum wrongness.

If we're going to be "originalist", I really struggle getting beyond the implication of ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

To me, that means the government cannot disallow citizens from bearing arms of any kind; i.e., some arms are allowed.  It doesn't say all arms are allowed.  If the Founding Fathers had wanted citizens to be able to bear any and all arms, they would have said so.  What they said was effectively that a total ban is unconstitutional.  Am I reading it incorrectly?

[B00M 6416]

30 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think you even really read my post. You clearly didn't understand it since your focused on something I didn't say. 

Your post was short, I'll include in below in its entirety. I responded to the part in bold. This seemed like the meat of the post to me. Based on your "what the fuck ever" reply, predictably talking about how, "reasonably restricted," our speech is, i didn't miss your point at all. 

7 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

The comments are ridiculous as well. Tons of post about all of those being unconstitutional. That's the rationale the GOP will run with even though it is false. It's amazing how many people think that the 2nd amendment is somehow special and is the only one that doesn't allow any  regulation or restriction of a right. 

 

 

[Dahobbs 17543]

6 minutes ago, B00M said:

Your post was short, I'll include in below in its entirety. I responded to the part in bold. This seemed like the meat of the post to me. Based on your "what the fuck ever" reply, predictably talking about how, "reasonably restricted," our speech is, i didn't miss your point at all. 

 

 

What point are you making? Why did you post the sarcastic "oh yeah" gif? Did you think that I thought no laws on gun ownership existed? Did you really think I was confused about that point? 

I was specifically talking about the comments to the Twitter post I quoted. I was pointing out the uneducated individuals who said over and over in those comments that any law restricting gun ownership would be unconstitutional. And I was commenting how unfortunate it is that the GOP has managed to convince so many that no attempt can be made to regulate gun ownership.

I don't understand how anything about your post addresses that. If you anything, you seemed to  suggest that the 2nd amendment is in fact special. But that isn't supported by the text of the Constitution or our judicial precedence. 

[B00M 6416]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

What point are you making? Why did you post the sarcastic "oh yeah" gif? Did you think that I thought no laws on gun ownership existed? Did you really think I was confused about that point? 

I was specifically talking about the comments to the Twitter post I quoted. I was pointing out the uneducated individuals who said over and over in those comments that any law restricting gun ownership would be unconstitutional. And I was commenting how unfortunate it is that the GOP has managed to convince so many that no attempt can be made to regulate gun ownership.

I don't understand how anything about your post addresses that. If you anything, you seemed to  suggest that the 2nd amendment is in fact special. But that isn't supported by the text of the Constitution or our judicial precedence. 

First of all, that's peak Jennifer Lawrence saying "okay." Now that the important stuff is settled...

I may still be misunderstanding your point. My apologies. As you state, gun ownership is regulated and there's plenty of judicial precedence for additional regulation, to a point that most of the left seemingly wants to pass. You credit the GOP with convincing people that no {further} regulation would be constitutional and/or effective. Thats fair.

But the GOP is currently enabling additional incremental regulation. It's focused and will be more effective than any of the state or federal assault weapon bans we've seen, because those are always promptly circumvented. This may surprise you, but the shall not infringe crowd hates the GOP and even the NRA for historically compromising. A lot of these guys don't vote or vote libertarian. The GOP didn't convince them of anything.

 

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by B00M

[Dahobbs 17543]

4 minutes ago, B00M said:

But the GOP is currently enabling additional incremental regulation. It's focused and will be more effective than any of the state or federal assault weapon bans we've seen, because those are always promptly circumvented. 

 

[Dahobbs 17543]

11 minutes ago, B00M said:

You credit the GOP with convincing people that no {further} regulation would be constitutional and/or effective. Thats fair.

No parenthetical necessary. I credit the GOP with convincing people that no regulation is possible because that's precisely what folks say (e.g. those Twitter comments). The fact that current regulations exist isn't relevant. The "shall not be infringed" folks don't comprehend or care about that inconsistency. 

[B00M 6416]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

 

Well played.

Anyway, here's a modern assault weapon ban  compliant California AR15. The magazine is standard capacity (30 rounds) and detachable. It can't have a pistol grip, telescoping stock, or flash hider. Do you think the effort saved any lives or simply cost law abiding time and money?

 

 

[Voldemort86 2259]

13 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Fucking garbage. Sorry Uvalde, 19 fourth-graders isn't enough to get the most basic gun reform passed -- or anything that would have prevented their death. These are the ideas that can save lives immediately.

Any bill from Cornyn is going to be gutless and lacking any substance.  The guy is the ultimate crony pussy boy who caters to private prisons, big pharma, and the NRA.

 

nothing good or productive ever comes from such a spineless, feckless, pussy boy like cornyn.

[Brisketexan 105151]

Any bill from Cornyn is going to be gutless and lacking any substance.  The guy is the ultimate crony pussy boy who caters to private prisons, big pharma, and the NRA.
 
nothing good or productive ever comes from such a spineless, feckless, pussy boy like cornyn.

Good sir, have you seen his brisket?

[Bama Chick 28596]

Nahhhhh

Red flag laws are just “political grandstanding”.

The “mental health issue” plaguing our broken country is our unhealthy and destructive obsession with guns.

[henrygandorf 29191]

obsession doesn’t bother me. access is an issue. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19101]

 

 

[royiv 9322]

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

 

 

Quiet parts out loud and all that. And it won't matter because his constituents feel the same way. They won't care until someone they love gets mowed down in a mass shooting and even then they might just chalk it up to collateral damage in the war to own the libs.

[Js1 85347]

4 hours ago, royiv said:

Quiet parts out loud and all that. And it won't matter because his constituents feel the same way. They won't care until someone they love gets mowed down in a mass shooting and even then they might just chalk it up to collateral damage in the war to own the libs.

Unless someone shoots their guns, they won't care or do anything. 

[Satchel 6938]

As Congress moves closer than it has in years to passing gun safety legislation following the recent mass shootings in Texas and New York, a new Morning Consult/Politico surveyshows voter support for gun control has reached a new high.

 

Record support for stricter gun laws

• According to the June 10-12 survey, 68% of voters support stricter gun control laws, higher than the previous record of 66%, which was set after the 2019 mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.
• Support for stricter gun control among all voters is up 8 percentage points since immediately after the May 14 shooting in Buffalo, N.Y., which was followed by the May 24 shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. Opposition to such measures  has fallen from 32% to 27% over that time frame.
• Record-high shares of Democrats (90%) and independents (67%) back stronger gun restrictions, compared with 44% of Republicans, which is 5 points shy of a record set after the Las Vegas mass shooting in October 2017. Half of Republican voters (51%) oppose tougher gun laws, including 34% who do so “strongly

 

 

[fattyflattie 4639]

32 minutes ago, Satchel said:

As Congress moves closer than it has in years to passing gun safety legislation following the recent mass shootings in Texas and New York, a new Morning Consult/Politico surveyshows voter support for gun control has reached a new high.

 

Record support for stricter gun laws

• According to the June 10-12 survey, 68% of voters support stricter gun control laws, higher than the previous record of 66%, which was set after the 2019 mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.
• Support for stricter gun control among all voters is up 8 percentage points since immediately after the May 14 shooting in Buffalo, N.Y., which was followed by the May 24 shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. Opposition to such measures  has fallen from 32% to 27% over that time frame.
• Record-high shares of Democrats (90%) and independents (67%) back stronger gun restrictions, compared with 44% of Republicans, which is 5 points shy of a record set after the Las Vegas mass shooting in October 2017. Half of Republican voters (51%) oppose tougher gun laws, including 34% who do so “strongly

 

 

This is common. Then when the details of “stricter” comes out, it trends back to where it was.  I’m not in disagreement it’s shifting that way, just saying that these polls show this often, then trend back when the nut cutting is discussed. 

[RomaVicta 29909]

10 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

 

 

Politics as sports. 

Coach, your best player hit a girl so hard that she sustained a concussion. It's the fourth time he's savagely attacked someone. It's on tape. What do you plan to do about this?

I'm more concerned with winning championships than watching video tapes or suspending players. Winning is my job and what the fans want.

These guys turned government into a sport where you cheer for the jersey. They know how to exploit this attitude to the fullest. The fans/voters don't want to know about criminality, they want to win and goad fans of the other team.

Edited June 15, 2022 by RomaVicta
Must have had a ministroke in the last paragraph.

[fattyflattie 4639]

2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I'm more concerned with winning championships than watching video tapes or suspending players. Winning is my job and what the fans want.

 

Stoops?  That you? 

[RomaVicta 29909]

[Satchel 6938]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

This is common. Then when the details of “stricter” comes out, it trends back to where it was.  I’m not in disagreement it’s shifting that way, just saying that these polls show this often, then trend back when the nut cutting is discussed. 

It’s not shifting. It’s been this way since Sandy Hook. When you consider the specificity of the poll questions, it becomes apparent that more Americans support the House Bill than the watered down bill being written by the Senate.

[fattyflattie 4639]

1 minute ago, Satchel said:

It’s not shifting. It’s been this way since Sandy Hook. When you consider the specificity of the poll questions, it becomes apparent that more Americans support the House Bill than the watered down bill being written by the Senate.

And for the polls which show a different story when specific bills are suggested?  This phenom happens over and over, for the last decade.  Nothing (well, minuscule amounts now) has changed legislatively for a reason.  As a “republican” who believes we should have safe storage laws, but disagrees with some other suggested changes, I am now in the “XX% of Republicans agree with stricter gun support laws”.  Supporting 1 of 10 ideas does not make someone in favor. And that’s where it usually gets sideways.  It’s a headline. It has a purpose.  

[Satchel 6938]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

And for the polls which show a different story when specific bills are suggested?  This phenom happens over and over, for the last decade.  Nothing (well, minuscule amounts now) has changed legislatively for a reason.  As a “republican” who believes we should have safe storage laws, but disagrees with some other suggested changes, I am now in the “XX% of Republicans agree with stricter gun support laws”.  Supporting 1 of 10 ideas does not make someone in favor. And that’s where it usually gets sideways.  It’s a headline. It has a purpose.  

It’s more than a headline. Those averse to real change tell themselves that in order to rationalize their intractability on this issue.

[fattyflattie 4639]

3 minutes ago, Satchel said:

It’s more than a headline. Those averse to real change tell themselves that in order to rationalize their intractability on this issue.

Ok. I’ll be here to discuss further when the next poll comes.  Like it always does.  The proof is in the legislation. You know, the acts by people elected to carry out the will of their constituents.   I’m certain Cornyns recent tweet, which runs afoul of your poll, will be met with a similar response by his constituents.  

[Satchel 6938]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Ok. I’ll be here to discuss further when the next poll comes.  Like it always does.  The proof is in the legislation. You know, the acts by people elected to carry out the will of their constituents.   I’m certain Cornyns recent tweet, which runs afoul of your poll, will be met with a similar response by his constituents.  

My point is proved by the lack of meaningful, impactful legislation. If Texas had the same requirement for purchasing ARs it has for handguns, there’s a chance the Uvalde 19 would be alive today.

[Blotto 23522]

23 hours ago, Blotto said:

And the NRA is correct. We've been having these discussions for 20+ years. We have them every year. We'll be having them 20 years from now. The NRA/GOP knows they can run out the clock and reframe the election around gas prices/inflation or whatever outrage captures the american public's fancy in November. Nobody in the GOP feels much concern that Uvalde will cost them an election because these events happen (sadly) all the time and it hasnt cost them yet. This is all lip service until the heat dies down. They will confuse issues, muddle issues, blame democrats for destroying the constitution, etc... and in the end, Congress will enact zero meaningful gun reform. We should replace the Lucy/Charlie Brown football gif with congressional gun reform efforts.

bumping my comments from yesterday after seeing this comment from Sen Kramer ND

Quote

"We aren't going to pass a federal red flag law, and we shouldn't. So why would we incentivize states to do something that we think is a bad idea? There is some confusion about what it actually does and that is what they are trying to clarify. ... I think we are more interested in red waves than we are in red flags quite honestly as Republicans, and we have a good opportunity to do that."

As long as they feel they can win elections while ignoring gun reform, there will be no gun reform. By the time (if) the Senate agrees on anything, the result will be a watered down piece of ineffectual shit. We'll just waste a few billion on hardening schools. 

[Satchel 6938]

1 hour ago, Blotto said:

bumping my comments from yesterday after seeing this comment from Sen Kramer ND

As long as they feel they can win elections while ignoring gun reform, there will be no gun reform. By the time (if) the Senate agrees on anything, the result will be a watered down piece of ineffectual shit. We'll just waste a few billion on hardening schools. 

Who can blame them when the voters don’t punish them for valuing guns more than people?

[4th&Five 41557]

Republicans are fine with new gun laws as long as they mean more guns. 

 

[RomaVicta 29909]

Blame them for everything wrong with our children.

Underpay them.

Don't pay for supplies.

Put them under penalty of civil lawsuits brought by any dickhead with an interest should any student ask about gender or sexual orientation.

Now expect people who chose training to teach to take training to become the army that protects their kids.

Is this all in the name of the NЯA and making public school so terrifying that people become convinced that vouchers are the only way to save their children? How do the deplorables buy into all of this?

Things the right hates: lawyers, unions, the press, your elected representives, and education. All things that give the little guy a chance, and they convinced a lot of little guys to want them destroyed.

It's just fucking crazy.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33872]