Every state, even the blue ones, allow gun ownership. No one in Congress, even the Democrats, are suggesting repealing the Second Amendment and banning all guns. You need to get them on board with your plan, first.
The rest of the civilised world has banned the sale of guns except for sport and that is heavily regulated. The only reason you don't is because you like 2A which was written for a completely differentcreason What on earth do you think your authors of the Constitution would say about what you have done with that amendment? They would be horrified if they were as worthy as you say.
You need to stop the NRA paying off your politicians and selling the idea that they are essential for everything from saving on insurance to saving the state.
Secure the campuses and you can cut school shootings down to zero AND preserve our constitutional rights. Everyone wind.
Drugs are highly regulated. They kill more kids than guns. From 1999 to 2016, 9,000 kids died from opioid overdose. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/7420 The government can't control the drug flow, but you think the government can control the gun black market that will be created after a gun ban is put in place? Hell no, it can't. A gun ban will be a suicide pact.
And you just proved the need for the 2nd Amendment. If the government can jail people at random, then it can jail people for random reasons. The only thing standing in their way is an armed citizenry.
So by BAN GUNS you don't really mean BAN GUNS. If we only allowed guns that are used for sport, what guns would be banned? Your ability to read the minds of people dead over 200 years is impressive. What have we done with it?
Guns do not add to the total in any way whatsoever. Well, yes and no. Yes, if guns actually did increase the number of children killed, our rights would be more important. But no, guns do not increase the number of children killed. And you were wrong. It does no such thing. Then you are a coward. A virtue signaler worth their salt would be willing to burn down their own home, just to make a statement showing the world how much they CARE. No they don't.
No. We are not serfs and you are not our lord. You do not have any say over what guns we are allowed to have. You do not speak for the rest of the world. Plenty of non-Americans reject your anti-freedom agenda. In particular, there is a band of countries from Finland to Switzerland who insist on being free. No. Banning guns would not protect children in any way. But even if it actually would, the answer would still be no. No. We like people who protect our freedom. They do. Receiving campaign contributions is entirely honest. Plus, the NRA's power has nothing to do with campaign contributions in any case. I didn't think you cared about children anyway. I think you just oppose freedom and are using children as a political weapon.
There is a band of countries from Finland to Switzerland that value their freedom just as strongly as America does. Finland accepts "national defense" as a valid reason for people to buy semi-auto rifles with 30 round magazines. Switzerland actually issues full-auto rifles for many people to keep in their homes. The Czech Republic allows people who want to carry guns for self defense to get a concealed carry permit. The three Baltic states also allow people who want to carry guns for self defense to get a concealed carry permit. Estonia and Lithuania allow people who volunteer to help defend the nation to have full-auto rifles. The Second Amendment was written to prevent you from violating our civil liberties. They would be delighted that they stopped you from violating our civil liberties. Setting aside the fact that the NRA is not paying off any politicians, we are a free country and the NRA has every right to speak out in favor of freedom.
people who think as you do are precisely why free citizens need to be well armed. / You hate the NRA not because you actually believe the garbage you post with your faux concern and crocodile tears about dead children-you hate the NRA because you are a hard core leftist and you despise any group or organization which mobilizes votes against the left wing politicians you paean
And I stand by my comment. The NRA is ultimately responsible for thousands of death à year including children. Why do you think they hardly ever make a statement after mass murder of children?
https://en.wikipedi.org/wiki/List_of congressional_candidates_who_received_campaign_money_from_the_National_Rifle_Association https://www.newsweek.com/republican-senators-nra-funding-texas-school-shooting-uvaldfe-1710332 Twitter: re 2022 Senators bankrolled by the NRA: Mitt Romney: $13,648,000 Richard Burr: $6,987,000 Roy Blunt: $4,556,000 Thom Tillis: $4,421,000 Marco Rubio: $3,303,000 Joni Ernst: $3,125,000 Josh Hawley: $1,392,000 Mitch McConnell: $1,267,000 Ted Cruz: $176,000 and before you start to accuse me of fabrication, look it up yourself and debate properly instead of calling other people out for not telling the truth. Just repeating NO is not debating...or even discussing. The access to guns you refer to are all carefully monitored and registered. They are not carried outside. and ironically every one you mention except Switzerland is an ex-communist state. So much for freedom. So much for the left disarming its citizens.
I hate corruption and paying for influence. I hate lobbying to tie the objectivity of lawmakers' hands to vote freely. And so should you. This isn't democracy. This is corruption.
We'd have to change the Constitution to impose restrictions that you want. The Democrats have never introduced a bill to repeal the Second Amendment.
Look who is number one. Guess who doesn't make the top 100. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/top-donors
What exactly did he say that you have a problem with? Was it the part that he wants to stop school shootings? Why is that offensive?
This is not beyond the wit of man. I don't see it as a bipartisan issue. I see it as a uniting against thousands of unnecessary deaths . It should be a unifying issue
It is not up forcdebate IMO. The NRA pour hundreds of millions of dollars into suggesting po liticians speak in their interest. I dont care which ones That is not the argument Nor am I interested in yayah oppositional politics. The issue us who runs American policy on gun ownership which is the root of many orher issues. I would say the same about AIPAC. Lobbying is one thing. Lobbying backed up by hige money around yop level lawmakers is something very much more serious. Frankly if there were laws against any Lobbying involving money gifts or favours above à certain level of politician, the democracy inhérent in it would improve instantly.