How does “Common sense gun control” prevent mass shootings?

I hope so, because it exposes the anti-gunners lie for what it is, a total lie.

 

Every "common sense" gun control law has already been passed. If there was not enough consensus to get it passed, then it wasn't common sense. And since those laws have been passed, and have not prevented mass shootings, the answer to the OP's question is no.

 

The 2nd Amendment validates his position. The right to self defense is an inherent right.

Both vague and irrelevant.

I haven't read through the past exchanges between you two, but he is likely giving more than he needs to give. The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution is quite clear as to what is protected (since self defense is an inherent right).

It is the only thing that matters in discussions such as this. The US Constitution, as it is literally written, within the context of which it is written, is the law of the land.

The Constitution says what it says; it is quite clear.

Why?

Why?

Why?

Why? Did this person commit a felony? Were they on their private property? Were they in public? Did they harm anyone else?

Define "mentally unstable"...

Amendment II of the US Constitution stands in your way.

Yes, he does. So do I.

 

"How does “Common sense gun control” prevent mass shootings?"

should walmart be allowed to sell machine Guns with proof of being over 18 like a pack of smokes?

or do common sense gun laws make us safer?

 

They should be able to sell them without proof.

 

Only if they are considered long guns.

Absolutely not because there is no such thing as a common sense gun law, that's anti-gunner code for the less popular term gun control laws which they abandoned as it was not polling well.

 

oh, so a ten year old child should be able to buy a machine gun?

now I will agree, if one looks over 18, they should not be ID's for smokes or beer, some take that too far

 

so making machine guns harder to buy then hand guns is not a common sense gun law?

 

I think the killing of their own parents is a bit more of a problem than any or no waiting period could ever be, but really, you gun grabbers seem to latch onto the strangest bit of minutia in order to attempt to infringe on the rights of citizens...

 

I doubt a 10 yr old will have the several hundred dollars needed to buy said item.

But yes, age discrimination is unconstitutional. Parents can of course exercise their powers as guardian to hold in trust such property and supervise its use.

 

Why, what's the difference if the purchaser is a law abiding citizen?

 

Why, why, why? Because gun violence in our country is increasing daily. That's why, and I don't care whether you agree or not.

 

Not a "gun grabber". Owned gun and shotgun. I knew those boys and I believe that a waiting period was called for in this instance.
When people with bad intentions purchase weapons of destruction, a waiting period may give time for a pause in the anger and an
opportunity to consider the ramifications of that action.

 

A tactic that has been proven not to work.

 

It may not work in every case and may work in some cases.

 

Do be sure to let those present know how a ten year old could actually afford the market price of such a firearm if one were ever to become available.

 

Except for the fact that it does not work in any cases, and has indeed led to individuals being killed while they were forced to wait to take possession of their legal property.

 

Over three hundred million Americans, and you want my rights to be determined by patricidal brothers? I think not. Owned, as in past tense, whether by choice or court order, you sound like one of those ex-smokers that everyone hates, because they quit, everyone should...

 

Never going to work, and it has been proven not to work.

There two types of domestic arguments, continuing and immediate.

A continuing argument is where both parties have an ongoing problem and fight about on a regular basis, should either party decide to bring it to a head and get a gun a waiting period will not deter such.

An immediate argument is where one party discovers the other party is violating the agreed rules of the relationship, most commonly one comes home and finds the other having sex with a third party.

In this case a waiting period solves nothing, the aggrieved party will get into an altercation with the cheating party, the aggrieved is not going to run out the door and buy a gun, and come back home to an empty structure, instead and this is based on my professional experience, it's starts verbal, escalates to physical.

The aggrieved, if not physically able to damage the others, will simply retreat to the kitchen, get out a long knife and unleash their rage, no gun required, knives can kill quickly and unlike guns are silent.

Anyone who claims a waiting period will lower crimes of passion is totally clueless as to how crimes of passion are actually carried out.

 

Straw purchase in a liberal metropolis, although that is a lot of lawns to cut given that 10 years have trouble competing with the illegal aliens for such jobs...

 

Anyone who believes that it never works is uninformed and set in their ways. My view is that a waiting period in the Menendez case
may have been successful in avoiding that crime. Besides, what harm?

 

Your argument makes sense but in all cases? No

 

Because the view being presented on the part of yourself is idiotic and devoid of anything resembling a basis in reality.

When the person who has to undergo the waiting period is murdered during the time they are denied being able to legally take possession of their legally owned firearm. Which, unlike the theory presented on the part of yourself, has actually happened.

 

My argument involves the person who is doing the dirty and who wants a gun to do it. The victim should go to the police if they feel threatened. Your argument does not include law enforcement but a gunfight instead.

 

same way that 10 year old gets a hold of a gun... the parents leave money or guns lying around I suppose