Buffalo Shooting Adds Pressure on Joe Biden to Push for Gun Control Measures

Because half of that group thinks if they give an inch they’ll lose the right completely

 

Of course not.... the votes aren't there.... the one good thing about having a 48-52 Senate against you is nobody can reasonably expect a lot to get done...

And yet, he actually has in some areas...

 

There's no question the anti-gun left will continue to push until they have effectively eliminated the right, so there's no rational reason whatsoever to give an inch.
That aside...
If -that- many people support (x) then NOT voting for (x) is a great way to lose your seat.
So, again: why don't they have the votes?

 

Apparently not.

And since I am from Wisconsin and haven't forgotten about this, what about "vehicular control" measures?? I mean, we can't sweep the Waukesha hate-crime massacre under the rug, right??

Oh wait, that was just a black guy (even after the media's poor attempt to lighten up his skin color) targeting a predominately white community... Never mind... Move along, move along...

 

Yup... He has plenty of time for Buffalo but no time for Waukesha... Hmmmmmmmm...........

 

Only if precedent is honored. By the reasoning used to dismantle Roe so could that precedent.

 

I see you do not understand the argument behind 'dismantling' Roe as laid out in the Alito draft.
Why don't you look into that, and then tell us how it would logically apply to 2A jurisprudence.

Until then, you have the answer to your question - like it or not.

 

I just told you why. Fear mongering like you just posted.

 

the lack of precedent is the exact reason roe is being dismantled.... 2A has always been part of the constitution. Roe Vs Wade passed in 1973......

 

What do you believe to be the ultimate goal of democrat regulation of the 2A? I do know that many democrats own guns, but they aren't nearly as vocal as the ones who want them all to go away. What level of regulation would allow for democrats to stop campaigning on the issue, in your opinion?

 

"Fearmongering" necessitates the use of some exaggeration to incite an irrational fear or unwarranted concern .
Noting that the anti-gun left will push until they have effectively eliminated the right to keep and bear arms is not an exaggeration, and the concern caused by this is not irrational.
Thus: Your explanation is devoid of rational basis.

 

Gun Control is REALLY! easy, if a Criminal commits a crime in possession of an illegal firearm, ARREST! them, KEEP! them in Jail, HAVE! a trial and either sentence them to life in Prison without the possibility of parole or if they murder someone with that illegal gun, EXECUTE them by Firing squad using Illegal Guns criminals have used in the past to murder people. If Commie Liberals do that, then come talk to me about my LEGAL Guns in my locked Gun Safe and whether or not I want to keep them, since my 2nd Amendment Rights say I can have them or if I can be convinced to sell them at Market value to the Government, since I'm a very responsible LEGAL gun owner. Liberals can kiss my Ass if they want to take my Guns first.

 

Not all dems are the same or have the same goals. Some just want more background checks and “assault” weapon bans. Some won’t stop until all guns are banned. I don’t much care anymore.

 

Except not everyone who wants more regulation is anti gun. I know I’m not.

 

I said "...the anti-gun left...".
The fact this may or may not include you - or anyone else - does not diminish what I said.

 

That’s silly logic. So we can’t cut taxes because some idiots want no taxes? We can’t regulate meat because some idiots wanna ban it?

 

It's not logic - it's a statement of fact.
Your "fearmongering" explanation holds no water because the conditions necessary for "fearmongering" do not exist.
Thus, you have no explanation as to why, with the supposed 80-90% of popular support for the bills in question, the Democrats do not have the votes to pass them.

 

I’ve explained it twice. My point was so good you had to delete most of my post to avoid acknowledging it.

 

It does not matter how many times you present an explanation that holds no water.

 

I still can't imagine understanding what a failure prohibition was, and then trying to ban abortion/guns/weed. It's like some lessons do not stick.

 

I've been Eyeballin one of these Babies! in 44 Magnum, I think in honor of Brandon I'm going to Pull! the Trigger and get it to add to my excessive Gun collection, No! pun intended.

 

Nice. I like the longer barrel.

 

So your theory is dems secretly love guns or that opinion polls on the issue are fake?

 

If you can't discuss what I actually said, I shan't waste more time on you.

 

You’ve not explained why you think they haven’t done it, you’ve only rejected my correct explanation